Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Yatender Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 15275 of 2022 & CM Appl. 47353 of 2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Court upheld that personnel transferred from training institutions are not entitled to retain government accommodation, affirming findings under CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, specifically Rule 27(c).
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2015 - Petition for quashing eviction orders and retention of accommodation - The petitioner, a CRPF officer, contested orders directing vacating accommodation based on non-entitlement due to service conditions - Respondents argued misinterpretation of rules. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of High Court - Scope of judicial review in eviction matters - High Court found no illegality in orders; the petitioner's entitlement was deemed correctly assessed under Rule 27(c) of the CRPF rules. (Paras 22-26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged multiple orders rejecting his request to retain government accommodation after being transferred, contending entitlement under specific CRPF rules due to service in LWE area. (Paras 2-11)
Findings of Court:
The impugned orders were held valid; the petitioner was not eligible for retention of accommodation as per the rules. (Paras 22-26)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to retain government accommodation post-transfer based on CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, and whether the rejection of his representations was justified. (Paras 18, 20)
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the petitioner did not meet the entitlement criteria under the relevant rules, resulting in lawful eviction notices being issued. (Paras 22-26)
Result: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for accommodation retention. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on legal entitlement to accommodation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondent's objections and counterarguments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court’s analysis on housing rules applicability. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. determination of eligibility under housing rules. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 6. final dismissal of petition. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking inter alia the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the Impugned orders dated 13.05.2022, 20.07.2022/ 26.07.2022, 19.09.2022 and 14.10.2022.
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to retain Quarter No. 26 Type IV at Group Centre Gurugram till the completion of his tenure at 202- Bn CoBRA, CRPF, Sunabeda, Koraput, Odisha.
c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to effect the recovery of any damage rent from the Petitioner."
2. The brief background of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Commandant and after giving several deployments was finally deployed with the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter "CRPF") Academy in the 2017. With the deployment at the CRPF, the petitioner was allotted Type-III Quarter at Group Centre Gurugram which was upgraded to Type-IV Quarter, bearing Quarter No. 26 at Group Centre Gurugram in July 2019. The petitioner alongwith his family was residing at the Quarter No. 26 till November 2021, i.e., when he was transferred to Combat Battalion for Resolute Action (202 Bn CoBRA) (hereinafter "CoBRA Batallion") currently located at Sunabeda, Koraput, Odisha and was relieved from the CRPF Academy with effect from 27th December 2021.
3. The petitioner, on being transferred to the CoBRA Battalion, made a representation dated 24th January 2022 before the concerned authorities seeking retention of his Type-IV Quarter for a period of two years relying upon Rule 27 (a) and 27 (b) of the CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2015. On the said representation, the respondents passed the order dated 13th May 2022 directing the petitioner to Quarter No. 26 within a period of fifteen days since his request for retention of the Quarter was not accepted by the concerned authorities.
4. Against the said order of vacation of Quarter, the petitioner made another representation dated 16th May 2022 to the Deputy Inspector General, Croup Centre CRPF, Gurugram which also came to be rejected by the Inspector General, North Sector, New Delhi, vide order dated 20th July 2022/26th July 2022.
5. The petitioner, thereafter, represented before the Special Director General on 9th August 2022 for retention of Quarter No. 26, however, the respondent vide its communication dated 19th September 2022 rejected the third representation on behalf of the petitioner as well.
6. Subsequent to the rejection, the petitioner preferred another representation dated 3rd August 2022 before the Director General, CRPF with respect to extension of allotment of quarter and on the representation the respondent vide order dated 14th October 2022 passed direction to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and held that he was liable to pay damage rent for the Type-IV Quarter amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, failing which the damage rent would be subjected to an increase by 10% for the second month, 20% for third month, 40% for the fourth month, so on and so forth.
7. The petitioner is now before this Court assailing the rejection orders dated 13th May 2022, 20th July 2022/26th July 2022, 19th September 2022 and 14th October 2022.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that, in acc
