Full Text
• v a"-• ' ' '
' k^'^the high•court -of •DEL|n; at^ new' delhi;/^-.-
•- •-'v-•-.•w.p.(c)7842/201'6;/v v.j'-
: \- JITEl^^ A® ANR; ..... Petitioners
,• ' V•-; . r :,• ^•; ;; ••:: - ' • :TfeougE^ , Mr. p. Sureshan,'Advocate. "
, \
-versus
V: ; uMc^ :^, -v' v:''-.^-i^spp
, ;;T , ! J Vi ' - '; M ;!/ '
\+- -'V^PXG)>844/2016;-^ • ••;•; s - v '
54 - ABHil^SHKUMA^ ^ ; .-.Petitioners
; r >.V >. >V -T^ I^. P.:Sur^h^ ;V •>:' versus'' •
" : : ' • Respondents • ' , ;V •' ~ , /; • 'Thrbugh ; Mr. Ajay Digpaul, CG$C. with
; . M -
(
ORDER ;-•;
"V:"% • ••-.•-'• /••••:'15.05.2017 ;:''v •;. r'':;': . '
• ;1.; ^The petitioners in the afbresdd twpi? writ p ^nd
; ;. ; 2. The two couples are posted in Delhi and had, sought permissi^
• ^ - ;' >outlivingli.e. tb-live biitsidethexai^ " ' ^
'r/: v- ,3.- ' The permission was denied. This has prompted;^^^^
. .. V the.present writ petitions. \ ^ ^-^ <
A T'IUIh' lo ''Kxr +1k^ /lAn?Gir\n'^ /
,, ;: .. 4/ , This issiie^^T^^
2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5864/2016, Subhash and Anr. v. Union of
'. ^ - V
2017:DHC:8171-DB
'C
A flW Ors. which is produced in entirety.
"1. The petitioners' are husband and wife. Relief claimed is to quash the letter dated May 19, 2016 denying outliving permission to the' petitioners. . . ' '
2.. Learned counsel who appearsfor the respondents on advance copy ofthe writpetition being served has produced an order dated July 04,
JUDGMENT
2016. Therelevantpart reads as under: SI. • (1) CISFNo. Rank (2) (S) 083240081 L/Const. Name (4) Rachna Pal ^ Reason (5) Request four out living permission - Remark of DIG/CASO (6), • As per opinion ofADG/APS in the meeting held on 29.06.2016 at APS during Monday meeting, it wa opined that all couples should be given out living permission. In the light ofthat opinion permission is hereby granted to L/Ct. Rachana Pal for living out side.'
3. Learned counselfor therespondents states that thename ofthe c ^.; ir - ' -, ' '. ' c " petitioner No. 2 in the writing under Column No. 6 makes itclear that the '.permission- is fqr ^the couple to live together. Learned counsel for the. respondents states that on the strength ofthe order datedJuly 04, 2016. both petitioners would be permitted to live outside but within the permissible, radius.. •4. Needless to state, HRA wouldbepaid as per applicable rules.,. 5.. Since the order which has been challenged in the writ petition is superseded by the order dated July 04, 2016, the writpetition is disposed ofas infructuous because the reliefwhich was desired by thepetitioners has flown to them. ' ' • 6. No costs. ",5., The aforesaid order refers to the remarks of DIG/GASO, who on the basis of the opinion obtained, had agreed that all couples,should be granted the outliving permission, which means that the couple can stay outside the CISF ca:mpus. '.;.. 6.' Pertinently, the petitioners have not been provided family accommodation in the CISF complex. In case, the family accommodation, Vould have beenprovided, the situation might have beendifferent.
7. Outliving permission has been granted by the respondents, to.- Abh'inesh Kumar and Archana Kumari, the petitioners in W.P.(C) 7844/2016. The said submission has been made by the respondents on inistmctions from Sh. Ganesh Baaloonij AC; CISF. It goes without saying that in qase, tie respondents have to grant outliving permission which has hot been granted in W.P.(C) No. 7842/20.16, Jatindra Kumar Pradhan, and Anr V. Union ofIndia and:Ors, the said permission would also begranted.
8. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioners would be entitled to -< ' ' • t.. i ' _A.,. ^ • I.;House Rent Allowarice as per theMes( Similar directions were also giyen,: ih Subhash andlinr.(supra).:; V /' - ! '
9. The aforesaid exercise would be Conipleted within a period of four months from the daie ofreceipt ojFcopy ofthis order..In case, the payment is;not' made within four months, '% per aimuni^fi: ' 10. The.writ petitions'are disposed of'with the aforesaid;directi6hs, ' withoiitany Order ak to cOsts.;^; •, /: Dastiy ' y ~ c SANJIVKHANNA/J PRATHIBA M. S 15^ 2017 N- ! V-.