Eligibility for government accommodation retention requires compliance with specific transfer conditions; court upheld eviction of Kashmiri Migrants not meeting these criteria, affirming equal treatment of all government employees.

Headnote:(A) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971; Supreme Court order dated October 07, 2021 - Eviction of Kashmiri Migrants from government quarters - Petitioners challenged eviction orders claiming entitlement under the scheme for retention; Court found petitioners ineligible under Office Memorandum dated March 28, 2017, as none were transferred from Srinagar to Delhi on security ground post-November 1, 1989 - Supreme Court ruled in previous judgments that evicted residents lacked basis for indefinite retention of accommodation, emphasizing equal treatment of current and former employees. (Paras 21-24)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions were filed by different petitioners, each a Kashmiri Migrant, seeking to quash eviction orders from government accommodations based on claims of being covered under a retention scheme.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the eviction, concluding the petitioners did not qualify for retention rights under the relevant policies and the Supreme Court's directives.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to retain government housing as Kashmiri Migrants despite eviction notices.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that eligibility under the cited Office Memorandum was necessary for retention, which the petitioners did not meet, thus dismissing their claims and reaffirming the need for governmental housing to serve current employees’ needs.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed; eviction orders upheld.

Table of Content
1. court will decide on eviction petitions. (Para 1)
2. eviction prayers and claims for stability discussed. (Para 2 , 4 , 6)
3. petitioners' backgrounds as kashmiri migrants presented. (Para 3 , 7 , 9 , 12 , 14)
4. court's reasoning on eligibility for housing retention. (Para 20 , 21 , 23)
5. dismissal of petitions for lack of merit. (Para 22 , 24)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (ORAL)--By this common order I shall decide the aforesaid three writ petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents seeking their eviction from the government quarters being Quarter No.245, Type IV, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi - 110022, B-179, Type IV, at Nanak Pura, South Moti Bagh, New Delhi, and Flat No.50 B, Pocket-B, Mayur Vihar Phase-II, Delhi- 110091 respectively. The facts of each of the writ petition are narrated separately.

W.P.(C) 14616/2021

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

"In the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed by the Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court that it may be pleased to:

a) Quash and Set aside the order F.No.245/LXN/TDA/2021 dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1

b) Stay the eviction proceedings against the residential quarter No. 245, Type IV, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi-110022

c) Issue directions to the Respondents to regularize the Petitioner's allotment of Government accommodation at residential quarter No. 245, Type IV, Laxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi-110022 and charge him normal license fees for a period three years as directed by the Hon.be Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Om Kar Nath Dhar, CA 6619/2014 dated 07.10.2021

d) Pass any other further such order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice."

3. The petitioner was a government servant having been appointed as SRO in National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operation Division) Udhampur, State of Jammu and Kashmir as it then was in the year 1983. While working in Udhampur, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi. The case of the petitioner in this petition is that he is a Kashmiri Migrant and is similarly placed as other government servants who are retired Kashmiri Migrants, who have been granted the continuation of government accommodation by the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. It is his case that he was under the belief that the respondents have covered the petitioner under the scheme providing alternate accommodation to retired Central Government employees belonging to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and as such did not bother to take any alternate accommodation and continued to stay in the government accommodation allotted to him. However, the respondents vide Office Memorandum dated October 20, 2021, stated that in compliance with the judgment of the Supreme Court dated August 05, 2021, they are seeking eviction of the petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner, the respondents have adopted a pick and choose implementation of the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after the judgment dated August 05, 2021, has also passed an order dated October 07, 2021, which the respondents have ignored wherein in paragraph 17 the Supreme Court has allowed the retention of accommodation by Kashmiri Migrants for a period of three years from the date of retirement.

5. Mr.Manoj V. George, Advocate who appears for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner hails from Srinagar which was the hub of militants at that time. The petitioner and his family were indifferently treated by the militants and separatist group of Kashmir as an informer of the Union of India as he was a government servant serving the Union of India and therefore, was one of the prime targets of the militants. The threat against the petitioner was real and imminent as many of the petitioner's neighbours were gunned down in his native village by various militant groups. Therefore, in a do-or-die si