Retired Govt Employees Can't Keep Govt Accommodation Indefinitely

The Supreme Court held that retired government employees, including Kashmiri migrants, cannot retain government accommodation post-retirement indefinitely. The Court emphasized that government housing is for serving officers, not retirees, to facilitate their duties. The respondent's argument for the right to shelter under Article 21 was acknowledged, but the Court clarified that this right does not extend to permanent retention of government accommodation. The Court set aside the High Court's order, directing the respondent to vacate the premises by a specified date and requiring a report on actions against retired officials occupying government housing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Retention of Government Accommodation by Retired Employees
2. Jurisdiction and Application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971
3. Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
4. Applicability of Precedents and Article 142 of the Constitution
5. Government Policies on Accommodation for Displaced Persons

Detailed Analysis:

1. Retention of Government Accommodation by Retired Employees
The core issue in this case is the right of a retired government employee, who is a Kashmiri migrant, to retain government accommodation post-retirement. The respondent, who retired on 31.10.2006, was initially allowed to retain the accommodation for one year. He then sought to retain it on a nominal license fee until conditions in Jammu & Kashmir improved. The Supreme Court held that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and not retirees. The Court emphasized that allowing retirees to retain government accommodation indefinitely defeats the purpose of such housing, which is to facilitate the discharge of duties by serving officers.

2. Jurisdiction and Application of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971
The respondent was served with an eviction notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971. The eviction order was initially stayed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, but later dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed the respondent’s writ petition, which was later challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the orders of the High Court were unsustainable and emphasized that the right to retain government accommodation post-retirement is not supported by any policy.

3. Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
The respondent argued that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Supreme Court acknowledged this but clarified that this right does not extend to retaining government accommodation indefinitely. The Court stated that the right to shelter is satisfied when alternative transit accommodation or cash compensation is provided, as per government policy. The Court emphasized that the right to shelter does not mean the right to government accommodation.

4. Applicability of Precedents and Article 142 of the Constitution
The respondent relied on the precedent set in J.L. Koul v. State of J & K, where the Supreme Court allowed retirees to retain government accommodation under Article 142. The Supreme Court clarified that directions under Article 142 are not binding precedents and should not be treated as the law declared by the Court. The Court emphasized that the relief granted in J.L. Koul was based on the special facts of that case and should not be generalized.

5. Government Policies on Accommodation for Displaced Persons
The Supreme Court referred to various judgments, including Lok Prahari (I) and (II), S.D. Bandi, and Shiv Sagar Tiwari, which held that government accommodation is meant for serving officers and not retirees. The Court noted that the government has policies for providing transit accommodation or cash compensation to displaced persons, but these policies do not extend to allowing retirees to retain government accommodation indefinitely. The Court held that the orders of the High Courts were de hors any policy and were arbitrary and irrational.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the writ petition challenging the eviction order. The respondent was granted time until 31.10.2021 to vacate the premises. The appellant was directed to submit a report on the action taken against retired officials occupying government accommodation post-retirement by 15.11.2021.

---