Divanshu Sharma & Ors. vs Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):

The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is directed against impugned office order No. 601 dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure A-1) & impugned office order No. 602 dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure A-2) passed by respondent No.4 i.e. Secretary, House Allotment Committee (Electricity Pool), UT Chandigarh, whereby without considering the applications of applicants for allotment of various categories of Electricity Pool Houses at Chandigarh submitted by them (A-12) pursuant to communication inviting applications dated 11.03.2026 (A-11), respondent No.4 has allotted Govt, houses of various categories of Electricity Pool Houses in Electricity Colonies at Chandigarh to staff/employees of other wings of Engineering Department, Chandigarh Administration in the absence of any rules/provisions/instructions qua the same, solely on the premise that as per notification dated 31.01.2025 (A-4) and 31.01.2026 (A-6 & A-7), the applicants stood transferred and assigned to respondent No.5 private company i.e. CPDL. The applicants have prayed for reliefs as under:

Vide order dated 02.04.2026, as an interim measure, this Tribunal directed the respondents not to give effect to Annexure A-1 and A-2.

Facts of the case in brief are that the applicants, stated to be employees initially appointed in the Electricity Department, Chandigarh Administration, were allotted Government accommodation in the Electricity Colonies at Chandigarh under the Electricity Pool, pursuant to allotment orders issued from time to time, including orders dated 12.10.2020, 02.12.2021 and 10.03.2023 (Annexure A-3). Their grievance in the present OA arises from their applications for allotment/change of Government accommodation not having been considered, while houses in the Electricity Pool were allotted to employees of other wings of the Engineering Department vide impugned Office Orders No.601 dated 27.03.2026 and No.602 dated 30.03.2026 (Annexures A-1 and A-2).

The applicants submit that pursuant to the Chandigarh Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2025 notified on 31.01.2025 (Annexure A-4) (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme), they were transferred to Chandigarh Power Distribution Limited (CPDL) on a provisional as is where is basis. They rely upon the stipulation in the Scheme that the terms and conditions of service of transferred personnel would not be rendered less favourable and that accrued service benefits would be recognized and protected. The applicants further point out that the validity of the transfer scheme and the subsequent notifications dated 30.01.2026 (Annexures A-6 and A-7) is under challenge in pending proceedings before the Tribunal.

In the said proceedings, vide order dated 29.01.2026 in OA No.1326/2025 (Annexure A-5), this Tribunal had directed maintenance of status quo concerning the applicants. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure A-8) in CWP No.4441/2026 kept the said interim order in abeyance till adjudication of the OA, while observing that if any authority were to precipitate the issue during pendency of the litigation so as to cause prejudice, the parties would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedial action before the Tribunal.

The applicants thereafter submitted applications pursuant to communication dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure A-11), inviting applications for allotment of various categories of Electricity Pool Houses. Their applications, forwarded through the concerned controlling officers on 13.03.2026 (Annexures A-12 and A-13) are stated to have not been considered on the ground that the applicants had stood transferred to CPDL. Their representation dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure A-14) also did not result in any action. Consequently, houses are stated to have been allotted to employees of other wings of the Engineering Department vide impugned orders dated 27.03.2026 and 30.03.2026 (Annexures A-1 and A-2).

The core contention of the applicants is that their exclusion from consideration for Electricity Pool Houses solely on the basis of their transfer to CPDL, while the legality of such transfer remains sub judice, is contrary to the protections contained in the Transfer Scheme and has caused prejudice to their existing and claimed entitlement to Government accommodation. They further contend that the allotment of Electricity Pool Houses to employees of other wings of the Engineering Department is itself impermissible. In support of their contentions, the applicants have relied upon the minutes of the House Allotment Committee dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure A-16), which is asserted to have recorded that Electricity Pool Houses were meant for employees of the Electricity Wing and could not be allotted to employees of other wings in the absence of a rule or provision permitting such allotment.

The applicants additionally allege discriminatory treatment, relying upon allotment order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure A-15), whereby an employee stated to be their colleague working in CPDL was considered eligible for allotment of a Government house under the Common/General Pool, whereas their applications were not considered by the House Allotment Committee. On this basis, the impugned action is assailed as arbitrary and discriminatory.

In reply, respondent nos. 1 to 4 submit that the residential colonies/quarters in question were not included in the RFP for privatization and were expressly retained by the Electricity Wing/Administration under the approved Transfer Scheme. It is further submitted that no valuation was undertaken in respect of these residential assets and they were not transferred to CPDL. The respondents further rely upon Schedule-E of the RFP/Transfer Scheme to submit that the service conditions of transferred personnel were protected and accordingly employees transferred to CPDL who were already occupying Government accommodation may retain such accommodation till retirement, subject to payment of HRA/licence fee and compliance with the applicable Common Pool House Rules and other conditions.

It is specifically contended that, barring applicant Nos. 3, 12, 16 and 17, the applicants are permitted to continue occupying the houses already allotted to them while they were employees of the erstwhile Electricity Wing, and therefore there is no alteration of their existing service condition, however, after their transfer to CPDL, they have no surviving right to seek upgradation of category or change of location. It is asserted that applicant Nos. 3, 12, 16 and 17 are no longer in possession of Government accommodation and are not entitled to fresh allotment having ceased to be Government employees.

With respect to transfer of the applicants, the respondents contend that although the Chandigarh Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2025 was initially provisional, options were subsequently invited and considered, and pursuant to the notifications dated 30.01.2026 (Annexures A-6 and A-7), the transfer of the personnel to CPDL became final. The respondents therefore dispute the reliance of the applicants upon the pendency of the litigation concerning the transfer, asserting that the applicants cannot reopen or reagitate the issues relating to the transfer which in the present proceedings concerning house allotment, the same having attained finality.

As regards the interim proceedings, the respondents acknowledge order dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure A-5), however it is emphasized that the same was kept in abeyance by the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 25.02.2026 (Annexure A-8). They contend that there has been no precipitation of the pending transfer litigation because the applicants already occupying Government accommodation have been permitted to retain it till retirement. The respondents maintain that the vacant houses are assets retained by the Administration, and their allotment is consequently within the domain of the Administration.

In response to challenge of the applicants to non-consideration of their applications, the respondents contend that the process of inviting/processing applications had been undertaken before finalisation of the transfer, but such processing was necessarily subject to the eventual final transfer notification dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure A-7). It is stated that applications from employees transferred to CPDL were placed before the House Allotment Committee. The respondents further state that the Secretary, HAC, had conveyed the position to the applicants on 25.03.2026 in response to their representation dated 24.03.2026, and subsequently processed the matter vide memo No.1244-1245 dated 07.05.2026.

The respondents also distinguish the allotment relied upon by the applicants as Annexure A-15, stating that the allotment of the Common Pool house to a transferred employee occurred during the provisional period of transfer and before finalisation of the Transfer Scheme on 31.01.2026, and therefore cannot be relied upon as a precedent for the present claim. Further, with regard to the minutes dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure A-16), the respondents contend that the said decision pertained to a period when the Electricity Wing was fully operational and the Electricity Pool Houses were earmarked for its employees. It is submitted that following privatisation, the houses were retained by the Administration under Schedule C1 of the Transfer Scheme. It is asserted by the respondents that this changed position leaves the Administration with discretion to determine allotment of vacant houses, and employees transferred to CPDL have no right to claim such fresh allotment as a matter of entitlement.

Respondent No. 5 has primarily contested the maintainability of the OA against it. It submits that CPDL is a distinct juristic entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, separate from the Chandigarh Administration, and is neither a department nor an authority of the Government. It is asserted that in the absence of any notification bringing it or its personnel within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sections 14(2) and 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, no relief can be adjudicated or granted against it.

CPDL further submits that no relief has in fact been sought against it. It is submitted that the impugned Office Orders No.601 dated 27.03.2026 and No.602 dated 30.03.2026 (Annexures A-1 and A-2) were issued exclusively by Respondent No.4, the Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh Administration. It is contended that CPDL neither passed nor participated in the said orders, and since the dispute concerns allotment, retention or change of Government accommodation forming part of the Electricity/General Pool, CPDL contends that the entire subject falls within the exclusive domain of the House Allotment Committee/competent authorities of the Chandigarh Administration and has no nexus with CPDL.

On merits, CPDL states that the applicants were transferred from the Electricity Wing to CPDL pursuant to the Chandigarh Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2025 and its amendments, and that the transfer was effected in accordance with the Scheme. It relies upon Part E(5)(c) thereof to submit that the transfer does not result in forfeiture of accrued service benefits and that such benefits are to be recognised and protected. CPDL maintains that it has no role or authority in the allotment of Government accommodation and raises no objection to the applications of the applicants being considered by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions and the Transfer Scheme.

In rejoinder, the applicants have principally disputed the contention of the respondents that upon their transfer to CPDL, they ceased to have any entitlement to seek fresh allotment, change of category or change of location of Government accommodation. The case of the applicants is that the respondents themselves admit that the residential quarters were not transferred to CPDL and that the occupancy status of employees transferred to CPDL is to remain unchanged till retirement, with the Common Pool House Rules continuing to apply. It is asserted by the applicants that this necessarily requires their applications for allotment/change of accommodation to be considered in accordance with the same entitlement framework, rather than being excluded merely on account of their transfer.

The applicants further contend that the respondents are adopting a contradictory position, while permitting transferred employees to retain Government accommodation till retirement, they seek to deny the same class of employees fresh allotment, upgradation or change of accommodation, thereby creating a class within a class. The applicants assert that such differential treatment is contrary to Part E Clause 5(a) of the Transfer Scheme, 2025 (A-4), which protects the transferred employees against service conditions being made less favourable than those applicable immediately before transfer.

On the specific question of consideration of their applications, the applicants clarify that their common grievance is not confined to their existing occupation of Government accommodation, but is the non-consideration of their applications altogether by the House Allotment Committee on the sole premise of their transfer to CPDL. They contend that this position disregarded the pending challenge to their transfer and the status quo order dated 29.01.2026 (A-5), followed by the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 25.02.2026 (A-8). They specifically dispute the assertion of the respondents that merely placing their applications in the agenda amounted to consideration, asserting that the applications were in fact not considered while passing the impugned allotment orders dated 27.03.2026 (A-1) and 30.03.2026 (A-2).

The applicants also maintain that so long as their challenge to the transfer remains pending, the transfer to CPDL cannot be treated as finally determinative of their entitlement for purposes of deciding their accommodation claims. The applicants therefore contend that the respondents have effectively treated them as a separate class from the employees of the Engineering Department, notwithstanding the protection contained in Part E Clause 5(a) of A-4.

I have heard the arguments addressed by learned counsel for both sides and perused the material on record. Miscellaneous applications for impleadment have been filed on behalf of proposed Respondent Nos. 6 to 36, stating that the proposed respondents are employees of the Engineering Department who were allotted accommodations in the Electricity Colony by virtue of impugned Office Order Nos. 601 and 602 (Annexure A-1 and A-2). Submissions on behalf of proposed respondents have also been heard.

Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, it is not disputed that the residential colonies/quarters forming part of the Electricity Pool were not transferred to CPDL and continue to remain with the Chandigarh Administration. It is also the admitted position of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 that employees transferred to CPDL who were already occupying Government accommodation are permitted to continue in such accommodation till retirement, subject to the conditions stated by the respondents, including applicability of the Common Pool House Rules. It is further not disputed that pursuant to communication dated 11.03.2026 (A-11), the applicants submitted their applications for allotment/change of accommodation, duly forwarded by their controlling officers, and that houses were thereafter allotted to employees of other wings of the Engineering Department vide impugned orders A-1 and A-2.

The principal question, therefore, is not whether the applicants acquired an absolute right to allotment of a particular house merely by submitting their applications. The question is whether their applications could have been excluded from consideration solely on the ground that they had been transferred to CPDL, when the respondents themselves acknowledge that the Government accommodation remained with the Administration, that the occupancy status of transferred employees already in occupation was protected till retirement and that the Common Pool House Rules continued to apply to them.

In this regard, the stand of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 presents a distinction between employees transferred to CPDL who were already occupying Government accommodation and those seeking fresh allotment or change of accommodation. According to the respondents, the former may retain their existing accommodation, whereas the latter have no right to seek fresh allotment, upgradation or change of location after transfer. However, the respondents have not been able to point out from the material placed on record any specific rule, instruction or provision which expressly excludes an employee transferred to CPDL from even having his application considered under the applicable accommodation policy solely by reason of such transfer.

The distinction sought to be drawn by the respondents is significant because the respondents themselves rely upon the continued application of the Common Pool House Rules to employees transferred to CPDL. Once the respondents accept that the accommodation occupied by such employees continues to be governed by the applicable accommodation policy and that their occupancy status remains protected till retirement, the mere fact of transfer to CPDL cannot be treated as an automatic bar to consideration of an application for change or allotment without a specific rule or provision to that effect. Whether an applicant ultimately satisfies the prescribed eligibility, seniority, category, medical or other applicable parameters is a matter to be examined by the competent authority. That question is distinct from the threshold question of whether the application itself is liable to be excluded.

The contention of the respondents that the applications had been placed in the agenda also does not, by itself, establish that the applications were duly considered on their merits. The applicants have specifically asserted that their applications were not considered while A-1 and A-2 were passed and that they were excluded on the premise of having been transferred to CPDL. The fact that the applications may have been placed before the Committee is therefore not sufficient to demonstrate consideration in accordance with the applicable entitlement criteria. In the absence of any material showing that the individual claims of the applicants were examined on the relevant parameters and thereafter rejected for reasons relevant to the accommodation policy, the plea of mere placement in the agenda does not cure the grievance of non-consideration.

The respondents have also sought to rely upon the notifications dated 30.01.2026 (A-6 and A-7), whereby the transfer earlier described as provisional was made final, and contend that the applicants cannot rely upon the pendency of the transfer litigation. It is correct that the order dated 29.01.2026 (A-5) granting status quo was subsequently kept in abeyance by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 25.02.2026 (A-8). However, the pendency of the challenge to the transfer itself is an undisputed fact. More importantly, the order dated 25.02.2026 expressly granted liberty to the parties to avail appropriate remedy before this Tribunal during the pendency of the litigation if any authority were to pass an order causing prejudice to the parties.

The pendency of the transfer proceedings, therefore, could not be ignored while considering a claim which the applicants specifically assert to have been prejudiced on account of the very transfer under challenge. At the same time, this Tribunal is not required in the present proceedings to adjudicate upon the validity of the transfer of the applicants to CPDL, which is the subject matter of separate proceedings. Nor can the applicants claim, merely because such proceedings are pending, that the transfer must for all purposes be treated as non-existent. The issue before this Tribunal is narrower, namely whether the pending transfer could validly be made the sole basis for shutting out the applications of the applicants from consideration for Government accommodation which admittedly continues to remain under the control of the Chandigarh Administration.

This Tribunal finds that the residential accommodation was admittedly retained by the Administration and that transferred employees already occupying such accommodation continue to enjoy protected occupancy. CPDL, on the other hand, has categorically stated that it has no role or authority in allotment of Government accommodation and has raised no objection to the applications of the applicants being considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules, instructions and the Transfer Scheme. Thus, the very ground on which the applications of the applicants were sought to be excluded cannot be sustained as an absolute bar to consideration.

The reliance placed by the applicants upon Annexure A-16, namely the minutes of the House Allotment Committee dated 03.03.2021, and Annexure A-15, the allotment order dated 21.08.2025, may not by themselves confer an independent right of allotment upon the applicants. The respondents have furnished explanations distinguishing both documents. Nevertheless, these documents reinforce the necessity for the competent authority to determine the claims of the applicants in accordance with the governing accommodation policy rather than excluding them at the threshold solely because of their transfer to CPDL. The question whether the applicants satisfy the applicable conditions for a particular category or change of accommodation must be left to the competent authority on a proper consideration of their individual claims.

It is also material that the impugned A-1 and A-2 resulted in allotment of Electricity Pool Houses to employees of other wings of the Engineering Department while the applications submitted by the applicants pursuant to the same process initiated by A-11 were not considered on their merits. In these circumstances, the applicants have established a case of procedural non-consideration. The contention of the respondents that the vacant houses were assets retained by the Administration and that the Administration consequently has discretion in their allotment does not answer the specific grievance. Discretion in allotment does not dispense with consideration of applications in accordance with the applicable rules and the parameters governing eligibility.

The Court is conscious that the proposed respondents, who were allotted accommodation under Annexures A-1 and A-2, may have acquired an interest pursuant to the impugned orders. They have been heard through their respective applications for impleadment. Their individual entitlement to the houses allotted to them is not being adjudicated upon in the present proceedings. The impugned allotments cannot, however, be sustained at the expense of a process in which the applications of the present applicants were not considered in accordance with the applicable entitlement criteria.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicants have made out a case for interference with the impugned Office Orders No.601 dated 27.03.2026 (A-1) and No.602 dated 30.03.2026 (A-2), to the extent the same proceeded without consideration of the applications of the applicants on the ground of their transfer to CPDL. The applicants cannot be denied consideration of their claims for allotment/change of Government accommodation merely on that ground. At the same time, no direction for allotment of any particular house can be issued without examination of their individual eligibility and entitlement under the applicable rules and instructions.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned Office Order No.601 dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure A-1) and Office Order No.602 dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure A-2) are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to reconsider the applications submitted by the applicants pursuant to communication dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure A-11), including the applications forwarded vide Annexures A-12 and A-13, in accordance with the applicable rules/instructions governing Government accommodation, the relevant provisions of the Chandigarh Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2025, and the observations contained in this order. The applicants shall not be excluded from such consideration merely on the ground that they stand transferred to CPDL.

The competent authority shall consider the applications of the applicants on their individual merits, including their respective eligibility, entitlement, category, seniority and other applicable parameters, and pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon. In the same exercise, the competent authority shall consider, in accordance with law, the eligibility and entitlement of the persons who were allotted accommodation under Annexures A-1 and A-2, including the proposed respondents, insofar as their allotments are required to be reconsidered consequent upon this order. Such exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

It is clarified that this order does not adjudicate upon the ultimate entitlement of any individual applicant to allotment of a particular category or particular Government accommodation. Likewise, no opinion is expressed in the present proceedings on the validity of the transfer of the applicants to CPDL, which is stated to be the subject matter of separate proceedings. The competent authority shall decide the applications strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and the observations made herein.

The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms. Pending Miscellaneous Applications shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.