Aian Terence M. Momin vs Secretary Meghalaya Legislative Assembly & Ors

This instant writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned letters dated 27th July, 2018 and 24th August, 2018 issued by the respondent No. 2, wherein the petitioner has been directed to comply with the proposed re-allotment of the staff quarters of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly.

The case of the writ petitioner is that he has been allotted the quarter as per procedure and that the impugned letters seeking to revoke the same being arbitrary and discriminatory, and moreover his representations not having been answered has compelled him to come before this Court for redressal of his grievances.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

Mr. J.M. Thangkhiew, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Protocol Officer under the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and had been allotted a quarter behind Assembly Press Building and has been in occupation of the same since 1st May, 2018. He submits that vide letter dated 27th July, 2018 (Annexure 6 of the writ petition) the petitioner was informed that the House Committee had identified irregularities in the manner of allotment of living quarters to the staff and officers and that the respondents sought to allot the ground floor and first floor of the quarter occupied by the petitioner to other officers and that the petitioner was directed to occupy the second floor of the said building.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner against the said letter had filed a representation dated 03.08.2018, but the respondents did not consider the same, but instead vide letter dated 24th August, 2018 (Annexure-8 of the writ petition) directed the petitioner to vacate the first and second floor and to occupy only the ground floor of the building and that the same was to be complied within a period of 7(seven) days. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was never heard before the impugned orders were issued, and further contended that the petitioner is entitled to the accommodation he is presently occupying and that the same had been allotted in a regular manner by due process. Learned counsel also further submits that the allotment of quarters is normally decided by the House Allotment Committee, whereas in the present case of the petitioner, the relocation of living quarters allotted to the petitioner has been done at the instance of a purported sitting held on 17.04.2018 as well as on 19.06.2018 of the House Committee. He submits that the House Committee is not the competent authority and has been formed strictly to look into the matters that are connected with the comfort and convenience of the members of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and is in no manner connected with matters dealing with allotment of quarters to the staffs and officers. As such, he submits that the impugned letters being without any basis should be set aside and quashed.

On another aspect of the matter, learned counsel has strongly refuted the allegations of nepotism which have been leveled against his deceased father, with regard to the allotment of quarters to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner's deceased father was the Secretary to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly at that relevant point of time. He submits that the allegations are unfounded and have no bearing whatsoever, in the instant matter as the allotment of quarters vide order dated 19th September, 2016 was under the hand and seal of the Under Secretary, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly. He concludes his submissions by submitting that the petitioner has been victimized and that the arbitrary action of the respondents is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. S. Sen, learned Sr. GA on behalf of the State respondents in reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the manner in which the petitioner was allotted the quarters, apart from the petitioner not being entitled to such large living space, was done in a highly irregular manner and in violation of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, (Meghalaya), 1990. He submits that the petitioner is only a Grade-III employee, and apart from the fact that he is not entitled to such accommodation, was allotted the said quarters even before the same was constructed, which he submits is highly irregular and unheard of.

Learned AAG submits that as per Rule 3 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, (Meghalaya), 1990, the allotment of residences is to be done by the House Allotment Committee and that the allotment is to be made according to the prescribed type of residences commensurate with the rank and status of the officials. He further submits that an order for allotment as per due process, an application as prescribed by Rule 6 of the said Rule is mandatory and that Rule 10 prescribes that allotment shall be effective from the date on which the residence is accepted by the officer.

Learned AAG submits that in the present case firstly, there was no application for allotment, secondly allotment was made against the quarters as yet to be constructed and thirdly, the petitioner had falsely stated that he was occupying the Government quarter w.e.f. 1st May, 2018.

To substantiate the above submissions, Mr. N.D. Chullai submits that it is not conceivable as to how the quarter was allotted on 19th September, 2016 when the same was yet to be constructed. In this regard, he draws the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents especially Annexures-1 to 8 which reflect that the work order for the said construction along with other civil works was issued w.e.f. 07.10.2016 to 01.06.2017. As such, he submits that the allotment of quarters on 19th September, 2016 before the existence of the quarter itself, is patently illegal and in violation of the Rules of 1990. He also further submits that there had been no application ever filed by the writ petitioner, for allotment and in fact he submits in the representation dated 03.08.2018, the petitioner himself has stated that the residential quarter was constructed upon his request and as such, allotted to him. He submits that this being in total violation of the said procedure, the allotment as apparent on the face of the record is unsustainable in law.

Learned AAG submits that the House Committee in its meeting apart from discussing other matters, had observed on the basis of an inspection report, that the petitioner who was a non-gazetted officer was occupying the whole building, which was highly irregular and recommended that that stern action should be taken and the three units were to be re allotted to the staff as per the rank and status. He further submits that it was also observed that the petitioner was allotted the building before construction and that the inspection report of the officials of the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly has stated that no employee was in occupation of the building till 14th May, 2018. He therefore submits that the undated letter claiming that the petitioner had occupied the allotted quarter since 01.05.2018 is a false statement made with a view to mislead the authorities. He therefore submits that the allotment not being commensurate with the status, and made in the irregular manner, the writ petitioner is seeking to establish a baseless claim that is not permissible and as such, there is no question of the same being considered or granted by the respondents.

In reply to the other submissions, he stresses that it is not a fact that the petitioner is being sought to be evicted as claimed, but in fact the exercise is only for streamlining the allotment as per eligibility with the post that one is holding.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and also examined the materials on record. The issues that arise for consideration before this Court are limited to, are whether the allotment was as per the said procedure and rules, whether the petitioner is entitled to the entire house as claimed and whether the respondents have acted arbitrarily in any manner in issuing the impugned orders. The parties are not in variance as to the applicability of the Rules of 1990 in the manner of allotment of Government residences. In this context, it would be relevant to quote herein Rule 3, 6 & 10 of the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, (Meghalaya), 1990:

"3. Allottment of residence- (1) Allotment of residence shall be made by the House Allotment Committee constituted for the purpose from time to time by the Government and its decision in the matter shall be final.

(2) Allotment shall be made according to the prescribed type of residence Commensurate with the rank and status of the officials and if such type is not available, the next lower type may be offered subject to availability and that also without prejudice to sub-rule (3) of this rule.

(3) Where any residence has been specifically designed for such categories of officers like Deputy Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer, etc., the Committee shall give preference to such category of officer."

"6. Application for residence-Application for allotment of residence shall be addressed to the Special Secretary/Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya in the General Administration Department in the proforma prescribed for the purpose."

"10. Commencement of allotment-An allotment shall be effective from the date on which the residence is accepted by the officer. The allottee shall intimate acceptance of allotment to the Estate Officer within seven days of receipt of the order of allotment."

The Rules as quoted above therefore clearly lay down the procedure as applicable in the consideration of allotment apart from other requirements which have to be fulfilled.

On examination of the records, firstly, nowhere is it recorded or reflected, that the writ petitioner had ever made an application for a quarter (residence) in the prescribed proforma. Secondly, it is undisputed that the writ petitioner is a Grade-III employee and as such, the accommodation applied for is to be commensurate with the rank and status held by the applicant officer. In the instant case, the petitioner is admittedly in occupation of a three storied building, which is also clearly evident by the photographs annexed by the petitioner himself, at Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner himself by the representation dated 03.08.2018 annexed as Annexure-7 has corroborated the fact that no application as warranted by Rule 6 was ever filed. The relevant extract is quoted herein below as follows:

"That, in view of the aforementioned, the residential quarter which is presently occupied by me was constructed upon my request which is just a mere extension of the residential quarters of the Press Director, Meghalaya Legislative Assembly and that the said quarters was allotted to me vide office order No. NAZ.51/MLA/2016/5 dated 19th September, 2016."

The above contents therefore reflect that by the petitioner's own admission, there has been no adherence to Rule 6 of the Rules and being a Grade-III employee as such, cannot be entitled to occupy the entire three storied structure.

Apart from the facts as discussed above, another fact glaring in the face of the records is that the quarter was allotted on 19th September, 2016 before the construction commenced, and the same was completed only in May, 2018. This pertinent aspect points to a grave irregularity which has been committed, which cannot be ignored by this Court. Another aspect that deserves attention is the fact that the impugned orders nowhere speak of eviction, but only of allotment as per the rank and status. This can be clearly seen from the letter dated 24th August, 2018. The only request made to the petitioner vide letter dated 24thAugust, 2018, was to direct him to occupy the ground floor as per the rank and status and to vacate the remaining first and second floor of the building, the letter having some relevance, is quoted herein below for ready reference:

"MEGHALAYA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

SECRETARIAT

No. AH 43/MLA/2018/65, Dated Shillong, the 24th August, 2018

To:

Shri. Aian Terrance Momin,

Protocol Officer,

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly

Shillong.

Sub:

Fresh allotment of Staff Quarter.

As per the decision of the House Committee meeting held on 19th 06, 2018, the new constructed Building behind the Quarter of Director, Assembly Press would be allotted to 3(three) Officers, Staff as per their rank/status.

You are therefore, requested to occupy only the ground floor as per your rank/status and to vacate the remaining 1st and 2nd floor of the building.

This order is issued against the previous order letter No. NAZ.51/MLA/2016/5 dated 19th September 2016 as the said order was issued to you prior to construction of the building.

Sd/-

Secretary i/c

Meghalaya Legislative Assembly."

From all the facts as discussed above, it can be clearly discerned that the entire episode of allotment, occupation of the quarters by the petitioner which was before its construction and completion, and also not as per entitlement, is highly irregular, and in clear violation of the prescribed rules. Further, the respondents now only seeking to streamline the allotment as per entitlement and due process, no arbitrariness can be attributed to their actions and the impugned letters only having been passed in furtherance of the same cannot be held to be illegal or without any basis.

As such, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed and disposed of.

No order as to costs.