Existing User Account
Gift Premium
Subscribe Premium

Kashmiri Migrants Retiring From Govt Service Not Entitled To Retain Govt Accommodation: Delhi High Court Affirms

Akshita Saxena

23 March 2022 1:09 PM IST

    • Kashmiri Migrants Retiring From Govt Service Not Entitled To Retain Govt Accommodation: Delhi High Court Affirms

    The Delhi High Court today upheld an order passed by the Single Judge, denying relief to a Kashmiri migrant who had retired from government service and sought permission to retain the government accommodation allotted to him for a period three years.The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,"We are not inclined. It is not that they...

    The Delhi High Court today upheld an order passed by the Single Judge, denying relief to a Kashmiri migrant who had retired from government service and sought permission to retain the government accommodation allotted to him for a period three years.

    The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed,

    "We are not inclined. It is not that they (government authorities) are discriminating against you (appellant). If we permit this, what happens to other people waiting in queue for govt accommodation? Govt doesn't have unlimited accommodation."

    The Bench was hearing an intra-court appeal, preferred against order dated February 16, passed by Justice V Kameswar Rao, dismissing a batch of petitions filed by government servants who are retired Kashmiri Migrants, challenging their eviction from the government quarters in Delhi.

    The present appellant, Sushil Kumar Dhar, claimed to be a Kashmiri Migrant. He was appointed as SRO in National Sample Survey Organisation (Field Operation Division) Udhampur, State of Jammu and Kashmir as it then was in the year 1983. He was later transferred to Delhi. He retired from service on March 31, 2020.

    He claimed that the government had introduced a scheme dated March 28, 2017 providing alternate accommodation to retired Central Government employees belonging to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The same struck off by the Supreme Court vide order August 05, 2021 in Union of India vs Onkar Nath Dhar.
    However, Dhar claimed that the Supreme Court subsequently passed an order on October 07, 2021, by which it allowed the retention of accommodation by Kashmiri Migrants for a period of three years from the date of retirement. He thus sought a stay on eviction proceedings and permission to retain the accommodation for a period of three years.
    He stated that the situation in Srinagar is not conducive for him to return. He added that returning to his hometown will pose a serious risk to his life and the lives of his family members.
    "Under Article 21, my fundamental right is protected. State is unable to give me proper security to re-establish myself in my village in Kashmir. Sitting in Delhi, we feel it's safe. As a Kashmiri migrant, pandit, I'm unable to go back," the counsel submitted.
    The single Judge had dismissed the petition on ground that the March 2017 scheme was applicable to those employees of the Central Government, who were posted at Srinagar at the relevant time and were transferred to Delhi on security grounds after November 01, 1989. However, that was not the case of the petitioner.
    It had observed,
    "From the representation dated October 18, 2021, it is noted that he was transferred to Delhi in January 1993, that is after four years from 1989. It is not his case that for security reasons he was transferred from Srinagar to Delhi after November 01, 1989. So, the petitioner was not eligible under Office Memorandum dated March 28, 2017."
    It was further held that the petitioner being ineligible under the March 2017 scheme, cannot rely on the Supreme Court's order dated October 07, 2021.
    In view of the above, the Division Bench said it finds no merit in the appeal and no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order.
    Thus, the appeal was dismissed. However, the Court permitted the appellant to continue to occupy the accommodation till 31 May, 2022, provided he files an undertaking before the Court in one week, stating that he will voluntarily surrender the premises by then.
    Case Title: Sushil Kumar Dhar v. Union of India
    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 230
    Tags
    Delhi High CourtKashmiri Migrant
    Next Story
    X
    sidekick
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...