Married Army Officer Entitled To Accommodation, But Spouse Can't Claim Right To Retain An Allotted Premise: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court held yesterday that Rule 4 of the Quartermaster Rules only entitles a married army officer to an accommodation. It does not confer any statutory right on the officer's spouse to retain the allotted accommodation.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order in a writ appeal filed by an army colonel's estranged...
The Telangana High Court held yesterday that Rule 4 of the Quartermaster Rules only entitles a married army officer to an accommodation. It does not confer any statutory right on the officer's spouse to retain the allotted accommodation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti passed the order in a writ appeal filed by an army colonel's estranged wife, challenging the eviction notice issued to her by Station Commander, Secunderabad in respect of the accommodation earlier allotted to her husband (respondent No.3), in which she continued to reside.
Notably, the Station Commander's order was upheld by a Single Bench of the court, which was also assailed by the appellant. She contended that as per Rule 4 of the Quartermaster Rules, she had a statutory right to reside in the accommodation allotted to her officer-husband and further, that the Station Commander had not followed the procedure laid down in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 before passing the eviction order.
On the other hand, Deputy Solicitor General of India informed the Bench that there were new officers stationed in Secunderabad who were awaiting allotment of accommodation, while the appellant continued to retain possession of an erstwhile allotment unauthorizedly.
After perusing Rule 4, the Division Bench said,
"...it is evident that it only deals with entitlement of a married officer to an accommodation and does not confer any statutory right on the wife of a married officer to retain the accommodation unauthorisedly. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of Rule 4 of the Quartermaster Rules, the appellant has right to continue in the accommodation is misconceived."
It noted that the accommodation in Secunderabad, Hyderabad was allotted to the appellant's husband in 2020 because he was posted in Jammu and Kashmir, an unrest zone. However, subsequently, he was posted to Uttarakhand, a peaceful zone, and his entitlement to accommodation in Secunderabad came to an end by efflux of time.
"It is pertinent to note that the accommodation was allotted to respondent No.3 when he was posted in field area at Udhampur. Since 28.06.2021, respondent No.3 has been posted in a peace area of State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, he is not entitled to accommodation in Secunderabad. The aforesaid position has not been disputed by respondent No.3. by contesting the proceeding before the competent authority under the Act. Therefore, the appellant, who is the wife of army officer, has no right to continue in the accommodation to the army officer (respondent No.3), to which the army officer does not seek entitlement."
Insofar as the appellant highlighted that the officer-husband had been transferred back to Secunderabad, and pressed for continuing possession of the allotted accommodation, the Bench noted that the officer-husband himself was staying in a mess with his ailing mother. The contention was rejected, observing that to continue possession, the officer-husband was required to make an application for allotment, which would be considered in accordance with law.
The Bench also took into account the fact that the appellant had continued to stay in unauthorized possession of the accommodation despite being served 8 eviction notices. The Command had already taken a sympathetic view and permitted her to continue residing in the subject accommodation for 2 years. The Single Bench, which heard the matter in January, 2023, had also allowed the appellant to continue accommodation till December 31, despite upholding the order passed by the Station Commander.
Accordingly, the competent authority was directed to have the accommodation vacated by the appellant by December 29. In the event of her submitting an undertaking that she would leave at her own will without creating hindrance, it was directed that she may be allowed to vacate the premises by January 15, 2024.
Counsel for appellant: M Sai Chandra Haas
Counsels for respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India Gadi Praveen Kumar for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4; Advocate Prudhvi Raju Mudunuri for respondent No.3
Case No.: WA 1195 of 2023