Summary
The Court held that a retired Kashmiri migrant employee’s right to shelter did not confer an indefinite right to government accommodation at nominal licence fee. Official housing served current employees; the rehabilitation policy considered provided transit accommodation or monetary assistance. Relief granted on special facts in J.L. Koul under Article 142 was not a generally binding entitlement. The High Court orders were set aside, the writ petition restored, and Dhar directed to hand over possession by 31 October 2021. A compliance report concerning similarly situated retirees was required by 15 November 2021.
Issues
- Whether displacement and the right to shelter entitled a retiree to retain official accommodation indefinitely.
- Whether the special relief granted in J.L. Koul established a binding entitlement for other retirees.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaThe right to shelter did not require indefinite retention or allotment of government employee housing; the rehabilitation arrangements considered provided transit accommodation or monetary assistance. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 19, 20)
- Articles 141 and 142, Constitution of IndiaSpecial factual relief under Article 142 was distinguished from binding legal principle; J.L. Koul did not establish a general right to retain official accommodation. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Held
- Compassion for displaced persons did not create an unlimited right to retain government accommodation after retirement, or to obtain equivalent official housing at nominal fee, without an allotment policy supporting it. Indefinite retention prejudiced serving employees for whom the housing was intended. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20)
- The right to shelter was distinct from a right to government accommodation. The rehabilitation policy considered contemplated transit accommodation or monetary assistance where transit housing was unavailable. (¶¶ 14, 15, 19)
- J.L. Koul accepted a particular State rehabilitation scheme and granted special relief under Article 142. Courts must follow the ratio declared under Article 141, rather than treat such fact-specific relaxation as a general precedent. (¶¶ 5, 6, 16, 17, 18)
- The appeal was allowed, the High Court orders set aside and the writ petition restored. Dhar had to hand over vacant physical possession by 31 October 2021; the Union had to report action concerning retirees occupying government housing under High Court orders by 15 November 2021. (¶¶ 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court orders set aside and writ petition restored. Dhar directed to vacate by 31 October 2021, with the Union’s report on action concerning similarly situated retirees due by 15 November 2021.