Shailender Kumar Aggarwal v. Director of Estates & Ors.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned allotment order dated 21.8.2010 whereby the petitioner had been allotted Type-III accommodation. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to Type-IV accommodation.

2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following directions which were made by this Court on 6.10.2010 in CM No. 12647 of 2010 in W.P.(C) NO. 4023/2007. 2013:DHC:1702 “Vide orders dated 29th July, 2010 directions were given to the respondent BSNL to allot accommodation to the petitioner as per his entitlement from the BSNL pool within a period of two weeks from the date of the submission of the application by the petitioner. The said direction was made by this Court on the proposal given by Mr. M.M.Sudan, counsel representing BSNL, that the request of the petitioner can be considered for allotment of accommodation as per his entitlement. Now a fresh controversy has arisen between the parties with regard to the issue of entitlement of the petitioner. Contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the accommodation being offered by the respondent BSNL is not as per his entitlement as the same being type III accommodation, while the contention of Mr. Sudan is that the said accommodation has been offered to the petitioner as per his entitlement in terms of the policy dated 29th July,

2010. Certainly this issue is not before this Court. In the given circumstances, liberty can be given to the petitioner to challenge the said decision of the respondent BSNL by filing an independent writ petition, if the petitioner wishes to do so. In the interest of justice, however, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the existing quarter by respondents No. 1 and 2 for a period of three months from the date of this order so that the petitioner is able to seek his appropriate legal remedy against the said decision of the BSNL. With the above directions the application and the present petition are disposed of.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon his application for allotment dated 5.8.2010, copy of which has been handed over in court today. As per this application, petitioner claims that since he has a pay-scale of Rs.8570- 12245 revised as Rs. 16370-30630, he would be entitled to Type-IV accommodation in terms of the printed instructions at the back of the application.

4. No doubt, as per the instructions printed at the back of the application dated 5.8.2010, it is mentioned that Type-IV category flat would be allotted to the persons drawing pay-scale of Rs. 11875-15999 (New Scale 206000(SDE Scale), but, counsel for respondent no.3 has brought to my attention the policy dated 29.7.2010 taken out by the respondent no.3-employer/BSNL whereby only Type- III accommodation has to be allotted to an employee who falls in NE-11 viz drawing a revised pay-scale of Rs. 16370-30630. It is therefore clear that as per the extant policy, employees such as the petitioner who draw a revised pay-scale of Rs. 16370-30630 will only be entitled to Type-III accommodation and not Type-IV accomodation. The claim of the petitioner therefore for Type-IV accommodation is wholly misconceived.

5. Counsel for the petitioner claims that if the petitioner had been allotted the flat before implementation of policy, he would have got Type-IV accommodation in accordance with the instructions contained at the back of the printed form, however, this argument is without merit because the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is dated 6.10.2010 in W.P.(C) NO. 4023/2007 and which reiterated the previous order dated 29.7.2010, and as per the said order, relevant portion of which have been reproduced above, allotment was to be made within a period of two weeks of the date of submission of the application by the petitioner. Since the petitioner has submitted the application admittedly on 5.8.2010, and as on this date, as per the applicable policy, the petitioner only was entitled to Type-III accommodation, petitioner cannot claim entitlement to Type- IV accomodation.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

APRIL 05, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib