IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10854 of 2009 Between: J.Subba Rayudu S./o.Bala Narasimhulu R/o.PJ-63, Panjagutta officer colony, Panjagutta Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The PRincipal Secretary, General Administration (Accommodation ) Department, AP Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Esstate officer Kahiratabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of 1st respondent vide Memo No.17902/Accom.B/09-1 dated 30.5.2009 wherein directed the petitioner to vacate the Quarter No.PJ-63 Panjagutta officers colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, on 31.5.2009 as bad arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.79 dated 21.2.2005 and also offends Articles, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VIDYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order dt. 30.5.2009 of the State Government represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government (Accom.) rejecting the petitioner’s application for retaining the Government Quarter No. PJ 63 till 31.8.2009 and directing the Estate Officer, Hyderabad to take further action in the matter. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to vacate the Government Quarter by 31.5.2009. The petitioner also complains that the impugned order was served on him on 31.5.2009 itself directing him to vacate the Quarter on the same day and this is arbitrary. The petitioner places reliance on the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 79 General Administration (Accom-A) Department dt. 21.2.2005, whereby allotment of Government Quarters Rules, 1973 initially issued in G.O.Ms.No. 248 General Administration (Accom.) Department dt. 17.5.1973 were amended. According to the petitioner after the initial three months period after retirement, extension of Government accommodation could be granted for further period of four months on proof that pensionery benefits are not settled, at a higher rent as specified. Rent is not the issue is the petitioner’s case. He wants to continue in the Government Quarter till his pensionery benefits are paid or till 31.8.2009, whichever is earlier. It is such an application that was rejected. On a true and fair construction of the rules including the amendment brought about by G.O.Ms.No. 79 dt. 21.2.2005, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the Government Quarter for a period three months after retirement but has no right to continue thereafter. The rules only vouchsafe a discretion in the Accommodation Authorities to grant extension for further period of four months beyond the initial period of three months on proof by the former Government employee that his pensionery benefits have not yet been settled. This discretion cannot be claimed as of right, to continue in Government Quarter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt.Vidyavathi very fairly concedes that there is an acute shortage of Government accommodation and this court takes judicial notice as well of the said fact. If the Government on policy feels that the accommodation needs of serving employees should be prioritized qua the needs of retired public servants, such policy cannot be faulted and such policy is rational and consistent with the equality injunctions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner has not made out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Smt.Vidyavathi in extremis would contend that the petitioner ought not to be thrown out of the Government Quarter overnight. The learned Government Pleader for GAD very fairly states that the petitioner would be given a week’s time to vacate the quarter. Recording the submission on behalf of the respondent, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 3.6.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 10854 of 2009. Dated: 3.6.2009.