Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J):— The applicant has assailed the order dated 08.09.2016/21.09.2016 to the extent that private respondents, who are junior to the applicants, have been allotted Type-12 House, government accommodation. He further sought issuance of direction to the respondents to allot him government accommodation as per the seniority list (Annexure A-5) and as per Rule 17 of the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 (herein referred as 1996 Rules).
2. The facts which led to filing of the present O.A are that the applicant who is physically handicapped with 45 % disability, initially joined the Chandigarh Electricity Department as Peon on 28.01.1988 and at present he is working as Upper Division Clerk. Initially, the applicant was allotted House No. 1047-A, (First Floor), Sector 28-D, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a request by way of representation for allotment of particular House No. 1037 (Ground Floor), Sector 28 as per rule as same was vacant and when no response was given to him, he made another request for change of house. His request was considered in the year 2013 by a Committee constituted for this purpose but his request was not accepted because there was another senior person to him and said house was allotted to that person as per rule. Subsequent to that in the year 2016, the respondents have allotted house to private respondents against which the applicant is before this Court on the plea that they have violated the rule formulation by not adhering to the seniority. Since his application is of prior date than of the private respondents, therefore, he has to be given first preference for allotment of house then the private respondents.
3. The respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant did not dispute the factual accuracy. However, they submitted that the applicant was initially allotted Type 12 Government Accommodation i.e House No. 1047.A First Floor, Sector 28 B vide order dated 02.11.2010 which is not objected by the applicant. Subsequent to that, the applicant made a request for allotment of House No. 1037, Sector 28 B, Type 12, Ground Floor which was not accepted by the authority because person senior to him was available and as per seniority, same house was allotted to Sh. Tilak Raj. Subsequently, no application was submitted by the applicant, therefore, his claim was not considered and it is submitted that O.A be dismissed being devoid of merit.
4. Sh. Vinay Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents also apprised this Court that it is not like that once the applicant had submitted a request for particular house then that will remain pending until he would be allowed the same. Each time whenever house becomes vacant, they invite applications and based upon those applications, seniority is to be fixed and houses are allotted as per the seniority. He submitted that the applicant did not submit any subsequent request and his earlier request was considered and rejected and it will not give him indefinite right to claim for change the house on one application.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and have perused the pleadings as available on record.
6. It is interesting to note herein that during the pendency of O.A the respondents came with an offer to allot House No. 1056, T-12, Ground Floor, Sector 28 B, Chandigarh to the applicant, but, the same was not accepted by him as informed by counsel representing the respondents. The allotment of Government accommodation in respondent department is governed by the Rules known as (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996. Rule 17 of the said Rules talks of Change of Residence and as per 17(2) of the said Rule, inter-se-seniority of the applicants/employees is to be maintained for change of house. Admittedly, at earlier point of time, the applicant submitted a representation in the year 2012 with specific request for allotment of House No. 1037 (Ground Floor), Sector 28 which was considered and the same was not accepted as person senior to him was available and the same was allotted to Sh. Tilak Raj. Subsequently, in the year 2016, the applicant did not submit any application for allotment against available houses and private respondents who submitted the representations were offered the houses as per the availability of houses. Contention of the applicant is that his request for particular house is pending with the respondent department, therefore, he has prior right, cannot be accepted because as per respondent assertion, each time whenever house becomes vacant, they call the applications from employees. This time the applicant did not submit any representation which is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, the respondents have not considered his claim for allotment of house which was allotted to private respondents. Even otherwise, it can be seen from Annexure A-6 that the applicant has not submitted any representation prior to this except Annexure A-6 whereby he requested that his request is pending for allotment of House No. 1037 (GF), Sector 28 B, Chandigarh, therefore, allotment of other officials be kept in abeyance till he allotted the said house. The fact remains that the applicant has not submitted any application in pursuance of fresh applications called by the respondents for allotment of houses which becomes available, was considered by the Committee constituted for this purpose and accordingly, houses were allotted to private respondents. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is a specific proforma for change of house upon which persons are called for change of accommodation as per Rule 17 of 1996 Rules and despite that during pendency of O.A the applicant was offered the house at Ground Floor i.e 1056, T 12, Sector 28 B, which was not accepted by him.
7. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with impugned order and accordingly, O.A is dismissed being devoid of merit. The linked MA is also disposed of.