C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION:18.09.2008 Shiv Kumar & Ors. ..........Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Housing Board ..........Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Aupam Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. **** UMA NATH SINGH, J. (ORAL) Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. Mr. Puneet Bali, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is no rule to support the scheme providing for categorization of accommodation like A,B,C and D and providing separate eligibility criteria. Thus this scheme under challenge is arbitrary in nature. He referred to Clause (II) (B) of the impugned scheme, which on reproduction, reads as under:- “The number of flats in each category shall depend upon the number of applications received for each category of Flats and the availability of land, generally keeping the same proportion as the number of applications received in each category. An employee shall be eligible for a dwelling unit according to his group. The Group 'A' employee shall be eligible for Three Bed Room Flat, the Group 'B' employees shall be eligible for a C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (2) dwelling unit according to his group. The Group 'A' employee shall be eligible for Three Bed Room Flat, the Group 'B' employee shall be eligible for Two Bed Room Flat, the Group 'C' employee shall be eligible for One Bed Room Flat and Group 'D' employee shall be eligible for One Room Flat. However, an employee from a higher group shall be eligible to apply for a lower category of dwelling unit.” Mr. Bali took exception to the eligibility criteria that an officer of higher group could apply for a lower category of dwelling unit, and also submitted that if the impugned scheme has been launched to provide accommodation according to pay scales, then officials of category 'C', who are presently getting higher pay due to length of service should also be eligible to apply for higher category of dwelling unit. Mr. Bali referred to the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulation Act, 1979. Regulation 6 (1) prescribes the eligibility criteria. Mr. Bali took us in particular to Regulation 25 (iv) to argue that there is no such classification that 5% of employees of Punjab, Haryana and U.T., Chandigarh, who have retired or who may retire within three years would be eligible to apply for allotment. He further submitted that this set of criteria should also apply in cases of serving officers. On the other hand, Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Chandigarh Housing Board submitted that this scheme has been framed primarily on the basis of pay scales of different groups of officers serving in U.T., Administration having come from different streams. This is also a submission of Mr. Gupta that presently pay scales of Punjab Government employees have been adopted by the Chandigarh Administration for its employees and this is not the length of service but the pay scales being drawn by employees at the time of joining their services C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (3) that would matter to determine the eligibility. Mr. Gupta further submitted that the number of lower category dwelling unit is many times more than the higher category, therefore, a large number of employees of lower group can be accommodated in the scheme in comparison with employees of higher group. Mr. Gupta referred to chart Annexure R-4 to show the position of applications received for different categories of dwelling units. According to him, for one bed room set, in total 5775 applications were received and the percentage of flats available under that category would be 74.36%, whereas, in higher category, the percentage of flats would be much less. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and find that the categorization of dwelling units under the impugned scheme has been made only on the basis of basic salary drawn at the entry point in service. Petitioners seem to be aggrieved mainly by the criterion that the officers of higher group would not only occupy the dwelling units of their entitlement but would also be eligible to occupy the dwelling units of lower category. If the categorization is based only on the basic salary drawn at the time of joining, then we don't find any justification for the officers of higher group to occupy the dwelling units of lower category. Accordingly, the eligibility criteria that an officer of higher group would also occupy a dwelling unit of lower category appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory. This scheme insofar as it relates to the entitlement of officers of higher group to apply for dwelling units of lower category is, therefore, quashed as unsustainable. This writ petition is thus allowed in part. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE September 18, 2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No.2215 of 2008 (4)