Back
Rules Govt Employee Has No Right To Retain Quarter When Needed For Public Interest
The has firmly held that a government employee cannot claim a right to continue occupying an official quarter when the government has taken a clear to dismantle the premises for a redevelopment project that serves the .
Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, presiding over a single-judge bench at the , dismissed a filed by Mary Megu, a Staff Artist with the , who had been resisting from her quarter in Naharlagun since a redevelopment plan was announced in early 2026.
The Dispute Over Quarter No. 506/T-II
The case traces back to when Megu was appointed as a Staff Artist. In , she was allotted Quarter No. 506/T-II at D-Sector, Naharlagun. On , the issued a notification announcing a decision to demolish a set of old government quarters, including the one occupied by Megu, to construct a multi-storied residential complex. The notification promised that affected employees would be provided alternative temporary accommodation or House Rent Allowance (HRA) until the new flats were built, and would get priority allotment in the new building.
Megu, however, wanted to retain her quarter until her retirement, citing personal hardships. Her representation was rejected by the on . Subsequently, the issued a notice under , and on , directed her to vacate within 14 days. Megu challenged this order through multiple writ petitions.
Arguments of Personal Hardship vs. Public Benefit
Megu's counsel, , highlighted that the petitioner had been in peaceful occupation of the quarter for nearly three decades. He argued that would cause great inconvenience to her and her family, especially since she is a single mother with two daughters still studying, and she is undergoing heart-related treatment at . He also pointed out that occupants of adjacent quarters had not been asked to vacate, suggesting discrimination.
The State, represented by Additional Senior Government Advocate , countered that the redevelopment policy was a well-considered decision in the to accommodate more government employees who currently lack official housing. She emphasized that the petitioner had no right to continued occupation once the policy was decided, and noted that a coordinate bench of the High Court had already, in earlier proceedings (W.P.(C) No. 85 of 2026 on ), held that the petitioner could not claim such a right. The State also informed the court that a subsequent seven-day extension granted by the High Court on , had not been complied with.
Court's Analysis: No Right to Continued Occupation
Justice Nair reviewed the entire sequence of events, including the earlier orders. He noted that the to construct a multi-storied building after dismantling the old quarters was a lawful exercise of taken in the .
The court observed:
"This Court further notices that the petitioner has of the quarter in question in view of the arrived at in the matter, pursuant to which the petitioner has been required to vacate the same."
The court also found that the redevelopment plan did not prejudice the petitioner, as she was offered alternative accommodation or HRA and would be among the first to receive a flat in the new building. The earlier order dated , which held that the petitioner had no right to remain in the quarter, had attained finality, and the petitioner was bound to vacate once her representation was rejected.
Key Observations
Justice Nair made several pivotal observations:
"This Court, from the materials available on record, finds that the decision of the respondent authorities to construct a multi-storied building after dismantling the quarters occupied by the petitioner and other persons in the said premises is a taken in the to benefit a larger number of Government employees who are without Government accommodation."
He further stated:
"This Court finds that, in terms of the stipulations contained in the , as incorporated in the notification dated , no prejudice is caused to the petitioner inasmuch as she has been provided with an option either to avail of alternative accommodation and/or to avail HRA as per her entitlement."
The Final Decision and Directions
The court dismissed the and directed Megu to vacate Quarter No. 506/T-II on or before , making it clear that no further extension of time would be granted. It added:
"In the event the petitioner fails to vacate the said quarter within the stipulated period, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to evict the petitioner, therefrom, by using such force as may be necessary, without issuing any further notice to the petitioner."
The ruling reinforces the principle that government accommodation is a , and that individual convenience must yield to broader public interest when the State takes a for developmental purposes.
