Point of Law: Circular is applicable only where the officer is occupying the government accommodation at the time of his retirement/superannuation ‘authorisedly’.

JUDGMENT :

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:

“13.1 A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders, directions quashing the Notice of Vacation which is discriminatory and also in contravention to the Principle of Natural Justice, and/or

13.2 Direct the Respondents to issue instructions so as to prevent any misuse of power by subordinate authority in granting extension of service accommodation discriminately within the ambit of policy;”

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Navy as a Sailor as EA(P)2 on 31.07.2001. In April 2019, the petitioner was transferred to the New Delhi station on compassionate grounds post-death of his new born child at INHS Kalyani in March 2018 and to look after his wife, who had been under severe trauma post the incident. The petitioner was allotted Government Accommodation, being Quarter No. SAHYADRI M-3/23 in Gurugram Bagh, for two years commencing from 12.04.2019 to 11.04.2021. On 27.04.2020, the petitioner was blessed with a baby girl, however, she had to be hospitalised for two months at BHDC and Civil Hospital due to Neonatal Sepsis and still, the growth of the baby was slow and she was under-weight. This had severely affected the emotional health of the petitioner’s wife and she is suffering from post-partum depression. The petitioner asserts that the COVID-19 pandemic has further aggravated the situation by adding to the stress of existing domestic issues of the petitioner. The petitioner states that he himself is suffering from health issues in the form of PIVD C5-C6 (Cervical Spondylosis) for the last seven years and has lately been diagnosed with Beta Thalassemia Minor.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that by a communication dated 29.01.2021, the case of the petitioner for retention of the quarter up to 31.07.2021 on compassionate grounds was recommended. He further asserts that on the said recommendation the petitioner was informed that his request for an extension of stay has been granted till 11.08.2021 vide QCM 02/21 dated 22.01.2021, however, he was later informed that vide QCM 03/21 dated 08.02.2021, his request has been accepted only till 31.05.2021.

4. The petitioner asserts that his request for retention of the quarter till 31.07.2021 was again recommended vide letter dated 17.05.2021, however, by a Notice dated 07.06.2021, the petitioner was asked to vacate the quarter by 07.06.2021, failing which suitable disciplinary action was threatened to be initiated against him. The petitioner, on 08.06.2021, replied to the Notice and prayed for permission to stay in the quarter till a confirmation is received on the status of his request for extension of stay. The petitioner further prayed that at least one week be granted to make necessary arrangements in case his request for extension of stay in the quarter is denied.

5. The respondents vide its letter dated 12.06.2021 informed the petitioner that his request for extension of stay in the quarter on medical grounds has not been granted vide QCM 10/21 dated 24.05.2021 and in view thereof, the petitioner was called upon to vacate the quarter by 21.06.2021.

6. The petitioner submitted a Redressal of Grievances (hereinafter referred to as “RoG”) on 17.06.2021 seeking extension of permission to retain the quarter till 31.01.2022, however, on 30.06.2021, an Eviction Notice was issued against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Premises Act”) calling upon him to show cause why an Eviction Order be not passed against him.

7. The petitioner replied to the above show cause notice on 06.07.2021 and filed the present petition seeking the above quoted relief.

8. Placing reliance on the Circular dated 03.02.2021, issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, the learned counsel for the petitioner