IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 18941 of 2005 Between: Sabitha Devi W/o. Sri K. Ashok Babu High Court of Andhra Pradesh R/o. Quarter.No.PJ-39, Panjagutta Colony Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, General Administration (Accommodation-B) Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad. 2 The Estate Officer Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Secunderabad Khairatabad 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 an appropriate writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring as illegal and arbitrary the Memo.No.79133/Accom.B1/2005, dated 16.08.2005 issued by the 1st Respondent and issue a consequential direction that the petitoner is entitled for continuance/re-allotment in Quarter No.PJ-39, Panjagutta Colony, Hyderabad in terms of Rule 8(5) of Allotment of Government Quarters Rules, 1973 and pass such other order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 18941 of 2005 Dated: 20-02-2009 Oral Order: The petitioner assails the order of the 1st respondent dated 16-08-2005 bearing proceedings Memo No. 79133/Accom.B1/2005 whereby her request for allotment/retention of accommodation in Government Quarter No. PJ-39, Panjagutta Officers’ Colony, Hyderabad (for short ‘PJ 39’) was declined, the husband of the petitioner was directed to vacate the said quarter with immediate effect and handover the same to the R & B authorities and intimate to the Estate Officer, Hyderabad/the G.A. (Accom.B) Department duly clearing the rent, water and electricity charges, if any due. The Estate Officer was also directed to initiate eviction process immediately. The petitioner is employed as a Section Officer in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Her husband is a Judicial Officer in the category of District Judge. While the petitioner’s husband was working as the Registrar of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, he was allotted quarter No. PJ 39 under an order of the Government in the Memo No. 58887/Accom.B1/99-2 dated 30-11-1999. The petitioner’s husband occupied the said quarter in March, 2000 on the allotment in November, 1999. The petitioner’s husband served as the Registrar, APAT, Hyderabad during 14-07-1999 to 01-09-2001; thereafter he was transferred and posted as a Judge, Family Court, Warangal and assumed charge of the post on 07-09-2001. During 07-09-2001 to 06-01-2003 the petitioner’s husband did not serve in Hyderabad, but worked as a Judicial Officer either in the Family Court at Warangal or as the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Warangal or as the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam. He returned to Hyderabad to serve as Chairman of the Co- operative Tribunal, Hyderabad, a post he joined on 13-01- 2003 and continued in the said post at Hyderabad up to 09- 01-2004. Thereafter he was posted as the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, a post he joined on 14-01- 2004. From 14-01-2004 to 09-08-2006 the petitioner’s husband was again serving outside Hyderabad either as the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda or as the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry. He was awaiting orders of posting from 10-08-2006 to 30-08-2006 and from 31-08-2006 to 02- 09-2008. He returned to serve at Hyderabad as the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Hyderabad. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner is currently posted as the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Warangal. After the transfer out of Hyderabad on 01-10-2001 the petitioner’s husband made a representation in reiteration of an earlier representation dated 04-09-2001, for retention of the PJ 39. On 28-02-2002 the application by the petitioner’s husband for retention of the PJ 39 was rejected. On 13-05-2002 the State Government issued a Memo calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarter and occupy the Government Quarter No. IS-58 at Erra Manzil Colony, Hyderabad (for short ‘IS 58’) without further correspondence on the issue. The petitioner however did not occupy the IS 58 but continued in PJ 39. Meanwhile, after return of her husband to duty at Hyderabad as Chairman, Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad in January, 2003, the husband continued in the quarter and the petitioner with him. In January, 2004 the petitioner’s husband in anticipation of his having to move out of Hyderabad on appointment as the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda addressed a communication dated 05-01-2004 to the Government requesting that the petitioner, his wife be permitted to continue in PJ 39. The reason underlying this request by the petitioner’s husband was to avoid frequent shifting from PJ 39 and the consequent movement of his wife to a lower type of accommodation. The petitioner’s husband sought a relaxation of the relevant rules as a ‘special case’ and irrespective of his stay in Hyderabad so as to facilitate his continuance in PJ 39 whenever he visits Hyderabad during holidays, vacations or on leave. Alternatively the petitioner’s husband sought that the petitioner be permitted to continue in PJ 39 till she was allotted a ground floor 3RT Quarter in Udyognagar or Irrum Manzil Colony. Earlier on 22-04-2003 pursuant to an earlier representation dated 15-01-2003 of the petitioner’s husband (seeking permission to retain PJ 39 on his transfer to Hyderabad as a Chairman of the Co-operative Tribunal), the Government passed an order cancelling the earlier order dated 13-05-2002 allotting Quarter No. IS 58 to the petitioner and permitted the petitioner to continue in PJ 39 along with her husband now posted at Hyderabad. On 04-03-2005 the Government informed the petitioner that she was allotted Quarter No. IS 58 and if she has failed to occupy the quarter within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, it will be construed that she is not willing to occupy the quarter and a report will be sent to the Government to this effect to cancel the allotment of the said quarter. This letter was addressed by the Estate Officer, Hyderabad & Secunderabad to the petitioner. The petitioner’s husband was then serving as the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. He addressed a letter dated 17-03-2005 to the Hon’ble the Chief Minister stating that the quarter No. IS 58 is not suitable as it is in the first floor and requesting to accord permission for continuance of the petitioner in PJ 39, as a ‘special case’. This was reiterated by another letter to the Hon’ble the Chief Minister on 23-06-2005. The petitioner’s husband also appears to have approached the Hon’ble Minister for Home, who by a note dated 07-07-2005 endorsed that the Government should consider his request to continue the petitioner in PJ 39. However, by the order dated 16-08-2005 the State Government rejected the request for retention or transfer of PJ39 in the petitioner’s name and called upon the petitioner to vacate the PJ 39 immediately and handover the same to the authorities under the intimation to the Estate Officer duly clearing the rent, water and electricity charges, if any due. The petitioner’s husband addressed another letter thereafter on 23-06-2005 stating that IS 58 allotted is not suitable on health grounds and for security reasons and reiterating the request for re-consideration of the matter and allotment of PJ39. Thereafter proceedings under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short ‘the 1968 Act’) were initiated and a Form-A notice issued on 23-06-2005. In response thereto the petitioner submitted a representation chronicling the series of representations made by her, by her husband and by both of them jointly, for retention of PJ 39 or at least till an alternative quarter suitable according to her perception, is made. On the above representation of the petitioner’s husband, the Hon’ble Minister for Home addressed another ‘note’ to the Chief Secretary to the Government to consider the request for retention of PJ 39. Eventually, the impugned order dated 16-08-2005 is passed rejecting the request for retention of the quarter PJ 39 and calling upon the petitioner to vacate the quarter immediately duly clearing the rent, water and electricity charges, if any due and directing the Estate Officer, Hyderabad to initiate eviction process immediately. This is the order impugned in this writ petition. On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, though the Government Quarter No. IS 58 initially allotted to the petitioner on 13-05-2002 was cancelled by proceedings dated 22-04-2003 permitting her to continue in the quarters during its occupation by her husband, who was at that time in Hyderabad on service,by a subsequent proceeding dated 04-03-2005, the petitioner was intimated of the allotment of quarter No. IS 58, but on one pretext or the other the petitioner failed to occupy the quarter. No Government servant has a right to a quarter of his or her choice. The allotment of a quarter is governed by rules and guidelines in this behalf. A government servant is at liberty to avail the accommodation provided by the Government or may pursue appropriate arrangements for private accommodation. The right to occupy a Government accommodation is neither a constitutional nor a statutory right. It depends upon the availability of accommodation and the rational discretion of the appropriate authority to allot a particular accommodation in accordance with availability and status eligibility of a particular officer. Having been allotted quarter No. IS 58 by the proceedings dated 04-03-2005, the petitioner and her husband instead of complying with the terms of allotment and proceeding to occupy the allotted quarter, have illegally retained and blocked the allotment of PJ 39 to other deserving officers serving in Hyderabad. This has caused considerable hardship to another deserving government servant who is entitled for allotment of PJ 39. There is nothing in the curriculum vitae of the petitioner or her husband which entitles them to occupy one quarter at the husband’s place of posting and another of the husband’s entitlement at Hyderabad by the wife, who is entitled to a lower category quarter. A public servant even in the matter of projecting a request for accommodation of government quarters should serve as a role model for emulation by others instead of exhibiting a limpet attachment to a particular accommodation, without legal entitlement. Government quarters per se do not confer status or respectability. The status or respect of a person in civil society should depend on surer foundations. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the 1968 Act is on the above analysis eminently justified in the circumstances; the impugned order is impeccable; and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondents shall now take expeditious steps for executing the order impugned in this writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 20-02-2009 Pvks