Awadesh Kumar Prajapati vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

V.K. Jain, J.—The matter was re-notified for 15.11.2013 but the same being declared holiday on account of ''Muharram'', vide Notification No. 940/G-4/Genl.DHC dated 13.11.2013, has been taken up for hearing today.

The petitioner before this Court claims to be 100% visually impaired. This is also his case that his wife is 60% handicapped. The petitioner is in the employment of Government of NCT of Delhi and, therefore, is eligible for allotment of a Government accommodation. Flat No. C-717, Type-III (First Floor) in Timarpur, Delhi, was allotted to the petitioner on 21.05.2012. The petitioner is posted at Police Lines, GTB Nagar and is seeking change of accommodation from Timarpur to Model Town on the ground that the flats at Model Town are nearer to the place of his posting.

In its counter-affidavit, the respondent-Government of NCT of Delhi has stated that Flat No. C-717, Type-III (First Floor), Timarpur, was allotted to the petitioner, not under the category of Visually Impaired Person, but under the Discretionary Quota of Director (Allotment) on ad hoc and emergent basis, taking his difficulty into consideration, and as per Government of Delhi allotment of Government Residence (General Pool) Rules, 1977, the request for change of flat can be considered only on the basis of his priority date. In the case of the petitioner, the priority date is 20.08.2009, whereas persons having priority up to 21.02.1989 are still awaiting allotment of flat in Model Town. It is also alleged in the counter-affidavit that the flat allotted to the petitioner has been sub-let by him and proceeding for cancellation of the aforesaid flat are underway. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that as on date, all the eight flats in Model Town stand allotted.

Considering the Allotment Rules of the Government of NCT of Delhi, change of accommodation can be granted to the petitioner only on maturity of his date of priority. The Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot give a direction which would result in contravention of the aforesaid rules. There is no good reason for the petitioner not to wait in the queue for change of the accommodation allotted to him by the Government. The petitioner cannot link allotment of residence to him, to the place of his posting, as a matter of right. For instance, if he is transferred to an office in say West Delhi and then to an office say in East Delhi, he cannot seek change of accommodation merely on account of change in the place of his posting, unless he applies for a change in terms of the Rules, such a change is permissible under the Rules and his turn for the change matures. Moreover, he has already been allotted residential accommodation which cannot be said to be far away from the place of his posting. Even according to the petitioner, the distance between the present accommodation allotted to him and the place of his posting, is only about four kilometres. The distance between the place of posting of the petitioner and the accommodation at Model Town is said to be only 1 1/2 kilometres. There is not much of difference between the distance from GTB Nagar to Timarpur on the one hand and from GTB Nagar to Model Town on the other, though the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is hardly any difference in the distance from GTB Nagar to Timarpur and from GTB Nagar to Model Town. In any case, no accommodation at Model Town is available for being allotted to the petitioner. No order as to costs.

The writ petition, in these circumstances, is dismissed.