HAC's Power to Earmark Govt Houses Upheld; Prior Conditional Allotment No Bar: HP High Court

HP High Court Upholds Earmarking of Govt House for Top Forest Officer, Dismisses Senior IFS Officer's Claim

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a senior Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer challenging the earmarking of a specific Type-VI government residence in Shimla for the state's Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Head of Forest Force - PCCF HoFF). Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua ruled that the House Allotment Committee (HAC) acted within its powers derived from state government notifications supplementing the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994, and that established conventions supported the earmarking decision.

Background: The Tug of War for Talland House

The dispute centered around Set No.1, Type-VI, Talland , Shimla, a coveted government accommodation. The petitioner, Amitabh Gautam , currently PCCF (Wildlife), and Respondent No. 4, the incumbent PCCF (HoFF), were the main contenders.

Mr. Gautam was conditionally allotted the house on May 20, 2023, upon its future vacation by the then PCCF (HoFF), Sh. Rajiv Kumar , who was set to retire over 14 months later on July 31, 2024. However, Sh. Rajiv Kumar retained the house until January 31, 2025.

In the interim, on September 2, 2024, the Forest Department's HAC, acting under the functions outlined in a 1998 State Government notification, decided to officially earmark certain houses for specific posts. Set No. 1, Talland , was earmarked for the PCCF (HoFF), while the house already occupied by Mr. Gautam (Set No.4, Mist Chamber, Khalini) was earmarked for the PCCF (Wildlife). Mr. Gautam challenged this earmarking and the subsequent rejection of his representation by the state government.

Petitioner's Contentions

Senior Advocate Neel Kamal Sood, representing Mr. Gautam , argued:

Lack of Authority: The 1994 House Allotment Rules do not empower the HAC to earmark houses. This required a rule amendment.

Illegal Notification: The 1998 notification allowing earmarking was an executive instruction that illegally supplanted, rather than supplemented, the statutory rules, citing Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal .

Violation of Natural Justice: The earmarking decision adversely affected the petitioner's prior allotment without affording him a hearing.

Procedural Flaw: The HAC meeting earmarking the house (02.09.2024) allegedly preceded the formal direction (03.09.2024) to undertake such functions.

Respondent No. 4's Ineligibility: Claimed the PCCF (HoFF) was ineligible for a change under Rule 13(3) having previously requested a downgrade from Type-VI to Type-V.

State's Defence

Advocate General Anup Rattan, for the State, countered:

No Vested Right: Petitioners have no vested right to a specific government house; allotment is state discretion exercised under rules.

Irregular Initial Allotment: The petitioner's May 2023 allotment was improper, being made 14 months before the house was anticipated to be vacant, contrary to a 2016 instruction allowing consideration only three months prior.

Valid Earmarking Power: The 1998 notification validly delegated the earmarking function to the HAC under Rule 2(i), supplementing the rules where they were silent, consistent with Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan .

Established Convention: The Talland house had been conventionally occupied by the PCCF (HoFF) since 2017 and often treated as earmarked even before that. The HAC decision merely formalized this practice.

Natural Justice Not Required/Complied With: Earmarking is a policy function not requiring individual hearings. Furthermore, the petitioner was heard when his representation was decided post the court's earlier order.

Rule 13(3) Inapplicable: The rule did not bar allotment to Respondent No. 4 upon his appointment as PCCF (HoFF).

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua meticulously examined the rules, notifications, and precedents:

Authority to Earmark: The Court found that Rule 2(i) allows the government to constitute the HAC and assign functions. The 1998 notification assigning the earmarking function was a valid exercise of this power. > "The notification dated 01.04.1998, cannot be said to be contrary to the House Allotment Rules. It in no manner supplants the Rules. The notification rather supplements the Rules."

Convention and Practice: The Court acknowledged evidence showing the house was traditionally treated as earmarked for the PCCF (HoFF), with exceptions explained by incumbents not wanting the accommodation at those times. > "...it is apparent that the house has traditionally been occupied by the PCCF (HoFF)... The earmarking... was an official endorsement of the prevailing convention..."

Petitioner's Allotment Validity: The Court questioned the propriety of the petitioner's initial allotment made 14 months before expected vacancy, deeming it unjustifiable and contrary to state instructions. > "Allotment of a house... when the existing occupant had 14 months to superannuate, is beyond comprehension."

Natural Justice: The Court held that principles of natural justice were not strictly applicable to the policy function of earmarking, especially given the house's traditional status and the petitioner's lack of a vested right to that specific house. It deemed a hearing would have been an "empty formality." The later hearing on his representation was noted.

Procedural Regularity: The Court found the earmarking process followed the existing applicable 1998 notification, dismissing the argument about the meeting date preceding a specific direction.

Respondent No. 4's Eligibility: The Court found Rule 13(3) did not prevent the allotment to the current PCCF (HoFF) post his appointment.

Decision

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it, upholding the earmarking of Set No.1, Type-VI, Talland , Shimla for the post of PCCF (HoFF).

The Court, however, took note of the irregular initial allotment made long before vacancy and directed the General Administration Department to circulate all relevant House Allotment Rules and instructions to ensure strict adherence by all departments in the future.