IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1698 of 2005 Between: K.Ashok, S/o.K.Raja Rao R/o.D-72, B.Block,Malakpet Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P.Rep by its Secretary (Accommodation), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Estate Officer, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, O/o.Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1698 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 18-06-2004 issued by respondent No.1, whereby it rejected the request of the petitioner for transfer/allotment of Government Quarter No.D-72 of Malakpet Colony. Heard Sri Koneti Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. There is no representation for the respondents. The father of the petitioner worked as attender in the High Court of Andhar Pradesh and took voluntary retirement on health grounds with eﬀect from 29-02-2004. Within a few days thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as attender by proceedings dated 05-03-2004 of the High Court. The petitioner’s father was in occupation of Government Quarter bearing No.D-72, B.Block, Malakpet Colony. Immediately after the voluntary retirement of the petitioner’s father, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 20-05-2004 ordering his eviction within 30 days from the date of publication of the said order. The said order was questioned in CMA.No.129 of 2004 and the same was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by order dated 23-11-2004. The said order was questioned by the petitioner’s father in CRP.No.235 of 2005, which was also dismissed by this Court on 28-01-2005. In the meantime, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 for transfer/allotment of quarter allotted to his father, which was rejected, questioning which, he ﬁled the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 4 (9) of the Allotment of Government Quarters Rules, 1973 (for short ‘the Rules’) framed by the Government of A.P. notiﬁed in G.O.Ms.No.248, General Administration (Accommodation.B) Department, dated 17-05-1973, which is extracted herein below: The spouse, sons and daughters of retired Govt. servants are so eligible for allotment of Govt. quarters according to their eligibility on out of turn basis, if they are in Govt. service irrespective of the fact whether their employment is regular or temporary, and if their place of duty is in greater Hyderabad. Provided that if the prospective allottee coming under Sub-Rule (8) of Sub-Rule (9) is not eligible for the allotment of the quarter of the original allottee, he/she will be allowed to reside in that quarter temporarily till he/she is allotted a quarter according to his or her eligibility. Learned counsel also ﬁled copies of orders dated 13- 10-2004 and 14-05-2007, whereby the Government had applied the above reproduced rule and allotted the quarters in favour of the employees, which were earlier allotted to their family members. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.1, the fact that the petitioner’s father took voluntary retirement and the petitioner was appointed immediately thereafter is not disputed. The only ground on which their action is sought to be justiﬁed is that as the petitioner’s father has taken voluntary retirement and has not retired on reaching the age of superannuation, the said Rule does not apply. It is also stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the respondents have initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. A careful reading of the above reproduced Rule shows that the spouse, sons and daughters of retired Government Servants are eligible for allotment of government quarters according to their eligibility on out of turn basis, if they are in Government service irrespective of the fact whether their employment is regular or temporary, and if their place of duty is in greater Hdyerabad. The phrase “Retired Government Servants” is not qualiﬁed with any further condition, namely, that the spouse, sons and daughters of only the government servants, who retired on reaching the age of superannuation alone are eligible for claiming the benefit under Rule 4(9). In the reply aﬃdavit, the petitioner asserted that in respect of the allotment made under proceedings dated 13-10-2004 and 14-05- 2007, the allotees are also children of the employees who took voluntary retirement. The respondent cannot discriminate between the petitioner and others who are similarly situated. In the absence of any such condition prescribed by the rule, I am not quite inclined to accept interpretation placed on Rule 4(9) and deny the beneﬁt of allotment to the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner’s father has taken voluntary retirement and has not retired on reaching the age of superannuation. As regards the allegations regarding the eviction order passed against the petitioner’s father, I do not see any relevance, whatsoever, to the claim of the petitioner to allot quarters on the basis of Rule 4(9) of the Rules. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and respondent No.1 is directed to allot the quarter to the petitioner under Rule 4(9) of the Rules. As a sequel to the above, WPMP.No.2274 of 2005 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:20-10-2008 usd