CWP No.20050 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20050 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 25, 2011 Mrs.Param Jyoti No.8886649-Y LDC .......Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.SK Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Joshi, Central Government Standing Counsel for Union of India. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. The petitioner is serving in the Defence Security Corps (DSC) on the clerical side attached to 12 Wing, Air Force, Chandigarh and is working on the present place of posting since 9.1.1994. On 13.1.2011, she received a communication from the respondent-authorities for vacation of quarter No.445, Sector 47, Chandigarh within a period of one month. The petitioner submitted a written request dated 17.1.2011 for permission to retain the accommodation on humanitarian grounds till such time the allotment of residential accommodation is made by the Directorate of Estate, CPWD, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Having evoked no favourable response, the petitioner filed O.A.No.292/CH/2011 before the Central CWP No.20050 of 2011 2 Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter to be referred as 'CAT') praying for quashing of the letter dated 13.1.2011 whereby she had been directed to vacate the accommodation in her possession. The aforementioned O.A. has been disposed of by CAT vide order dated 23.8.2011 whereby directions have been issued to the petitioner to exercise her option by choosing one of the five quarters being offered by the respondents within a period of one month, failing which the letter dated 13.1.2011 for vacation of the premises would come into operation. It is such order dated 23.8.2011 passed by CAT which has been impugned in terms of the filing of the present writ petition. 2. Mr.SK Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. It was contended by him that the quarter occupied by the petitioner is of category type-II, whereas the quarters being offered by the respondents are not of that category. Accordingly, on 18.11.2011 we had asked Mr.Sanjay Joshi, Advocate, the Central Government Standing counsel, who was present in Court, to seek instructions and file an affidavit regarding the status of the quarters that were being offered to the petitioner. He was also directed to place on record the relevant material with regard to the status of the quarter already occupied by the petitioner. 3. In deference to the order dated 18.11.2011, an affidavit dated 25.11.2011 of the Air Commodore, Air Officer Commanding 12 Wing Air Force was filed and taken on record. It has been stated on oath that the petitioner is LDC and her grade pay is Rs.2,400/- and thereby, she is entitled to a type-II quarter. The affidavit further states that the petitioner is presently occupying a type-III quarter having a plinth area of 58.57 sq.mts. Our attention has been drawn to Annexure R3 appended along with affidavit CWP No.20050 of 2011 3 to demonstrate that the classification of various types of quarters is on the basis of the plinth area available therein. The quarters being offered to the petitioner i.e. quarter Nos.821-A, 822-A, 823-A, 833-A and 939-A, all situated in Sector 47-A are of type-II. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that as per grade pay of Rs.2,400/-, the petitioner is entitled to type-II quarter. We have no reason to disbelieve the contents of the affidavit dated 25.11.2011 of an Officer of the rank of Air Commodore of the Indian Air Force. The petitioner is currently occupying a type-III quarter which has a plinth area of 58.57 sq.mts., whereas her entitlement is of type-II quarter. A perusal of the petitioner's own request dated 17.1.2011 placed on record at Annexure P7 would reveal that she is wishing to retain the present quarter on humanitarian ground and not as per entitlement. Still further, the petitioner has herself admitted that she has applied for allotment of a residential accommodation on 26.8.2010 to the Directorate of Estate, CPWD, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not justify the basis or reasoning for the petitioner not to have applied for such allotment for the period 1994 to 2010. This fact has even been noticed by the CAT. 5. Even before us, the offer of five quarters of type-II i.e. as per her entitlement was re-iterated by the respondents. The petitioner, however, is adamant on retaining the accommodation which she has occupied since 1994. We are of the view that mere occupation of a better or larger accommodation over a period of time would not vest in the petitioner, a right in law to continue occupying the same. The petitioner's entitlement as per her grade pay to a type-II quarter is undisputed. Five quarters of type-II CWP No.20050 of 2011 4 category have been offered to her and inspite of such option being given, she is refusing to vacate the type-III quarter in her possession. 6. We find no merit whatsoever in the writ petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE November 25, 2011 SRM Note: Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes/No