Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sandeep Sharma, JJ.
Sumit Sharma, Son Of Shri Sansar Chand – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary (Gad) And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 7597 of 2021
Decided On : 28-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - H.P. Allotment of Government Residential (General Pool) Rules, 1994 - Rule 9 - Right to Information Act – Employee as driver in High Court - Change of accommodation – Concept of equality - Petitioner is employed as a driver in High Court of Himachal Pradesh and was allotted accommodation, Since accommodation (as per petitioner) did not suit to him as it was away from road and there were stairs making it difficult for his aged and ailing parents to live with him in said accommodation, accordingly, he applied for change of accommodation through proper channel - This is not a solitary case, where official-respondents have been found to be openly and shamelessly violating Rules. There have been many occasions, where this Court has been constrained to even suspend the powers of government in the matter of allotment of accommodation only because there were large scale of bungling and irregularities in same and it is nothing short of a “scam”. (Para 50)
Finding of the court :
It is trite that holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, office is held by them in trust for people. Any deviation from path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under carpet. It is duty of judiciary to enforce rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of rule of law - The concept of equality before law means that among equals law should be equal and should be equally administered, and that like should be treated alike. There must not be discrimination among equals unless there is reasonable classification - It is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and it therefore violative of Article 14. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment - respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to vacate accommodation of respondent No.3 by handing over the vacant and peaceful possession to respondent No.2, who, thereafter shall ensure that accommodation in question is fully habitable with proper electricity and water connection and hand over the same to the petitioner latest
Result: Petition allowed
ORDER :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
How an illegal action, resting on inflated ego of a high-ranking officer of the State, can result in prolonged litigation causing immense suffering to the petitioner is best reflected in the instant case.
2. The petitioner is employed as a driver in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and was allotted accommodation i.e. Set No.54, Block-H, Type-II, Nabha Estate in the year 2021. Since the accommodation (as per the petitioner) did not suit to him as it was away from the road and there were stairs making it difficult for his aged and ailing parents to live with him in the said accommodation, accordingly, he applied for change of accommodation through proper channel on 22.3.2021.
3. The petitioner was informed by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court vide letter dated 17.4.2021 that his request for change of accommodation could not be acceded to as the accommodation was in possession of one Rajesh Sharma, who was due to retire on 30.4.2022 and as such his request could in accordance with the instructions be considered only after retirement of said Rajesh Sharma.
4. Subsequently, respondent No.2 i.e. Director, Directorate of Estate to the Government of Himachal Pradesh informed the petitioner vide letter dated 11.8.2021 that the respondent-Department had not received any intimation from Rajesh Sharma regarding vacation of the accommodation and it was further reiterated that the respondent-Department was already in receipt of the request made by the petitioner and one Rajesh Kumar for change of accommodation.
5. The petitioner remained under impression that his request for change of accommodation would be dealt with in accordance with law, but he was surprised to know that on 23.8.2021, respondent No.2 issued a letter to respondent No.1 conveying approval for change of accommodation in favour of respondent No.3, Chaman Lal.
6. The petitioner thereafter applied for information under Right to Information Act to know as to under what circumstances the accommodation had not been allotted to him. Relevant portion of the information so supplied to the petitioner reads as under:-
| Sr. No. | Name of Applicants & Designation | Allotted house | Requested House | Grounds |
| 1 | xxx | xxx | xxx | xxx |
| 2. | Sh. Chaman Lal-III, Driver, H.P. Secretariat (Applied on 19.8.2021 in this office) | Set No.1/16, Royal Hotel, Nabha Estate on out of turn basis on 17.8.2021 (not accepted, telephonically confirmation from Estate office) | Set No. SII/ 156, Type-II, Nabha Estate (for alternate) | He has to perform his duty in odd hours and he is facing hardship to match up his duty hours in exigencies of services. |
| 3 | xxx | Xxx | Xxx | Xxx |
| 4. | Sh. Sumit Kumar, Driver, H.P. High Court (Page-47/C) (Applied on 24.3.2021) | Set No. HII/ 54, Type-II, Nabha Estate on out of turn basis and occupied on 30.5.2020 | Set No. SII/ 156, Type-II, Nabha Estate (for change) | Allotted accommodation in note situated on the road side and it becomes difficult for his old age parents to reach home. |
7. Aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in allotting the accommodation in favour of respondent No.3, the petitioner has filed the instant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
