AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
The appellants are all either Constables or Head Constables hitherto working in the 46th Battalion of the Provincial Armed Constabulary. They
were allotted Type-II quarters in the 46th Battalion during the period they were employed thereat. On their transfer to the 31st Battalion, they sought
retention of the very same quarters in the 46th Battalion. On their request being rejected, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.
By the order, impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that, since no interim order was passed in the writ petition filed in the year
2012, the appellants must have vacated the said quarters; and no orders need be passed in this writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the appellants, would fault the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that it is based on surmises
and conjectures. Learned counsel would submit that, in the absence of any material on record, to show that the appellants had either been evicted
from, or had vacated, the Type-II quarters in the 46th Battalion, the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition.
On the other hand, Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, would draw our attention to the counter affidavit filed
by the respondents wherein it is specifically stated that different quarters are provided to both the 46th Battalion and the 31st Battalion; on transfer of
an employee from the 46th Battalion to the 31st Battalion, he is required to vacate the Type-II quarter in the 46th Battalion, and seek allotment of
quarters in the 31st Battalion; despite their transfer to the 31st Battalion, the appellants continued to retain possession of the Type-II quarters in the
46th Battalion; and they are now seeking protection of this Court for their illegal retention of the quarters in the 46th Battalion, which they are no
longer entitled to occupy, consequent on their transfer to the 31st Battalion.
The only support, which the appellants derive for their claim for retention of the quarters in the 46th Battalion even after their transfer to the 31 st
Battalion, is the letter addressed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 07.07.2008. In the writ petition (the order passed in which is
impugned in this appeal), the appellants had sought a mandamus directing the fourth respondent not to dispossess them from the existing quarters till
availability of Type-II quarters in the 31st Battalion PAC, and to permit them to live in the same premises as they were living as on the date of filing of
the writ petition.
A writ of mandamus is issued for violation of a statutory provision, be it plenary or subordinate. A letter addressed by an official cannot be equated
to a statutory provision or a rule. No mandamus can, therefore, be sought for enforcement of the letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police
dated 07.07.2008. The appellants have not been able to show any statutory violation by the respondents, conferring on them a right to retain the
quarters in the 46th Battalion even after their transfer to the 31st Battalion.
While the learned Single Judge has, no doubt, non-suited the appellants on the ground that they must have vacated the quarters, we have examined
the matter on merits, and are satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in insisting on the appellants vacating the Type-II
quarters in the 46th Battalion consequent on their transfer to the 31st Battalion. It is not in dispute that the appellants are entitled to be allotted quarters
in the 31st Battalion. While we see no reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in this regard, the respondents shall consider the
appellants-writ petitioners’ claim for allotment of quarters in the 31st Battalion in accordance with their seniority, as and when vacant quarters are
available for allotment.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands dismissed.