The right to shelter under Article 21 does not entitle retired government employees to retain government accommodation, as such housing is intended for active service personnel only.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (Oral)--This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of the Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the letter dated 21.08.2019 cancelling the allotment of the flat allotted by the Respondent no.2 and the Eviction Order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Respondent no.2 and the Policy/Scheme dated 28.03.2017 ("Policy/Scheme") framed by the Respondent No.2 for the Kashmiri Migrants employees of the Central Government.

(ii) Issue directions to the Respondents to allow/permit the Petitioners to retain the quarter No. 088, Type-IV, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi-49 till the Government make it possible for them to return to Srinagar, or till a suitable alternative accommodation is provided to them anywhere in Delhi or till such time this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice on payment of normal license fee which the Petitioners have been paying since the time of allotment of the Flat to Mr. Wangoo payment of minimal license fee which the Petitioners have been paying while Mr.Wangoo was in service."

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of eviction passed by respondents on 29th November, 2019. Admittedly, they are the mother and the son of the deceased Government employee Mr.Avtar Kishan Wangoo. The Government employee died on 11th May, 2019. The eviction order records that since the petitioners held no valid license to occupy the government premises or letter of allotment, they were clearly in unauthorized possession and were liable to be evicted. When the petition was initially entertained, the entire case rested on the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India vs. Vijay Mam, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3218 and principles laid down in that petition dealing with the right of Kashmiri migrants or officers who had migrated from Jammu and Kashmir to occupy Government accommodation and for rehabilitative steps which were liable to be taken. The aforesaid issues as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in J.L. Koul & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 371 fell for consideration before two learned Judges of the Supreme Court recently in Union of India & Anr. vs. Onkar Nath Dhar, 2021 SCC Online SC 574. In its order of 5th August, 2021 passed in the aforesaid matter, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"13. In view of the judgments referred above, the Government accommodation could not have been allotted to a person who had demitted office. No exception was carved out even in respect of the persons who held Constitutional posts at one point of time. It was held that the Government accommodation is only meant for in-service officers and not for the retirees or those who have demitted office. Therefore, the view of the learned Delhi High Court and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is erroneous on the basis of compassion showed to displaced persons on account of terrorist activities in the State. The compassion could be shown for accommodating the displaced persons for one or two months but to allow them to retain the Government accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative accommodation that too with a nominal license fee defeats the very purpose of the Government accommodation which is meant for serving officers. The compassion howsoever genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy a government accommodation.

14. According to a policy framed by the government, a displaced person is to be lodged in a transit accommodation and if it is not available then cash compensation is to be provided. But the displaced persons cannot occupy government accommodation. If a retired government employee had no residence, they have an option to avail transit acco