HIGH COURT OF KERALA
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J
K.LATHEEFA BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE – Respondent
RSA 1042 2009
Vacancy - Quarters Allotment - Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968, Government Servants' Quarters Allotment and Occupation Rules, 1975 - The court upheld the eligibility condition for occupying government quarters, stating that the rules did not apply to the Health Department's buildings.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed a right to occupy a government quarter despite a notice to vacate, arguing that Allotment and Occupation Rules should apply. The respondent contended the quarter was needed for eligible officials.
Issues: Whether the appellant's entitlement to occupy the quarter was contrary to law and whether the amendment to challenge the legality of the proceedings was rightly dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: The occupation condition imposed on the appellant was valid, and the health department's policies did not fall under the general public works regulations governing accommodations.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal comes from judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.No.223 of 2004 confirming dismissal of the suit, O.S.No.1510 of 2002 by learned First Additional Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. Appellant while working as Attender, Grade II in the Government Health Services was allotted quarter No.IV for her stay by respondent No.1. She was promoted and on the date of suit was working as permanent Nursing Assistant at Women and Children's Hospital. She claimed that there are five quarters attached to the training centre of which quarter No.IV is occupied by herself. Other quarters are also occupied. While so, she received a notice from respondent No.2, Director of Health Service directing her to vacate quarter No.IV within three days as the said quarter was allotted to the Law Officer. Appellant submitted a memorandum to the Government based on which further action was stopped. The Law Officer was allotted quarter No.III. Appellant has ten more years service in the Health Department. Claiming that she is entitled to continue in quarter No.IV until retirement she filed a suit for decree for prohibitory injunction against her eviction. Respondent No.2 contended that quarter No.IV was allotted to the appellant on condition that when eligible officers applied she would vacate the quarter. The officers of the Health Service were occupying all the five quarters. Additional Director was occupying quarter No.I while the Law Officer was occupying quarter No.III. The three other occupants including appellant were not actually eligible to occupy the quarters. But, subject to the condition first above stated, appellant was permitted to occupy quarter No.IV. Quarter No.IV occupied by the appellant is required to accommodate senior officers and hence notice was issued to her. Appellant got stay from the Minister based on Ext.A4, representation and hence, quarter No.III was allotted to the Law Officer. As per Ext.A3, order dated 02.11.2002 respondent No.2 has allotted quarter No.IV to the Additional Director of Health Service. Trial court and first appellate court accepted contention of respondent No.2 and non-suited the appellant. Hence this Second Appeal raising the questions whether the finding of first appellate court that appellant is not entitled to claim right of occupation is contrary to law, whether dismissal of I.A.Nos.2060 of 2004 and 2318 of 2007 by the first appellate court is correct and whether courts below acted contrary to law in non-suiting the appellant by relying on Ext.B3 as substantial questions of law. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that Ext.B3, the proceedings of respondent No.2 cannot override the Government Servants' Quarters Allotment and Occupation Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”). It is contended by learned counsel that first appellate court should have allowed request of appellant to amend the plaint challenging legality of Ext.B3.
2. It is not disputed that as per Ext.B1 appellant was permitted to occupy quarter No.IV on condition that she would vacate when eligible officials are to be accommodated in that quarter. Ext.B3 is the proceedings of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for appellant has invited my attention to Clause V of Ext.B3 where it is stated that “the occupants shall abide and the existing rules of the allotment and occupations of Government servants quarters in Kerala and also be liable to Kerala Public Buildings (eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1968(XXV of 1968)”. Learned counsel would then invited my attention to Rule 2 of the Rules and contended that the quarter in question is under control of Public Works Department and hence the rule must apply. 3. Clause V in Ext.B3 relied on by learned counsel does not say that so far as allotment of quarters to the officials of Health Services is concerned, rules would apply. Rule 2 of the Rules says that the Rule shall apply to all residential buildings under the control of the Publ
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.