JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.: (Open Court)

CM No.2097/2007

After hearing counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that ends of justice require that the reliefs claimed should be acceded to. The application is accordingly allowed.

CM No.1101/2007

The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.12.2006. Apparently, the case was taken up from the regular list and there was no appearance and the petitioner was unrepresented. The order discloses that there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. In these circumstances after hearing counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that ends of justice require that this application ought to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition is restored to its original position.

W.P.(C) 4819/1997

1. With consent of counsel for the parties the case was heard finally today.

2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by an order of eviction made against him on 29.9.1997 by the learned Additional District Judge, rejecting his appeal. He also challenges the order dated 8.1.1996 of the Estate Officer directing their eviction from Government quarter No. 609(Z-167) Timar Pur, Delhi. The admitted facts declaring are that the second petitioner, who was at the time working as an Assistant, was allotted the said Government accommodation in 1953, according to his entitlement. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1982. He was entitled to hold premises for two months. In the meanwhile his son, the first petitioner secured employment in 1976 the Central Government apparently in the same pay scale; he was appointed as a Head Clerk in the year 1976.

3. The petitioners approached the authorities for a regular allotment but to no avail. The representations for regularization of occupation were turned down in 1994. The Central Government acting through the Estate Officer issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971; the petitioners resisted the proceedings and suffered an order of eviction on 8.1.1996. They unsuccessfully appealed to the Additional District Judge. Claiming to be aggrieved, by the order of the appellate court, they have approached this court.

4. The petitioners rely upon a circular dated 1.5.1981 which entitles the son/child of a Government servant allotted accommodation, upon the latterer retiring, to the same accommodation provided that such son, etc. resided with the Government servant for at least 3 years preceding the date of retirement. That circular is extracted below :

"No.12035(7)/79-Pol.II

Government of India

Ministry of Works and Housing

(Directorate of Estates)

New Delhi, the 1st May, 1981

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Concession of ad-hoc allotment of General Pool accommodation admissible to eligible dependants/relations of Govt. employees on their retirement.

In exercise of the powers/conferred under S.R. 317-B-25 of the Allotment Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963 the Central Government have decided that when a Government servant, who is an allottee of General Pool accommodation retires from service his/her son, unmarried daughter or wife or husband, as the case may be, may be allotted accommodation from the General Pool on an ad-hoc basis, provided the said accommodation in General Pool and had been continuously residing such retiring government servant for at least three years immediately proceeding the date of his/her retirement. In case, however, a person is appointed to government service within a period of three years proceeding the date of retirement or had been transferred to the place of posting of the retiring Government servant any time within the proceeding three years, the date on which he was so appointed for transferred would be the date applicable for the purpose. This decision would cover cases of Government servants retiring on or after 07.11.1979.

In the case of those Government servants who retired prior to the 7th November 1979, the concession of maki