Disposed

Renu Dhayal v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC22 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/9505/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A BBMB employee's residential accommodation allotment was cancelled by office order without stated reasons or a hearing. The High Court directed the competent authority to reconsider her pending representation after affording an opportunity of hearing within two weeks, kept the cancellation order in abeyance meanwhile, and barred dispossession until a reasoned decision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Renu Dhayal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~7

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9505/2026 & CM APPL. 44168/2026

¶4

RENU DHAYAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Nikunj Arora and Mr. Parv Garg, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kartik Sharma, G.P. for UOI.

¶8

Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Advocate. Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, Mr. Mukul Katyal and Mr. Aman Dahiya, Advocates for R-2 to 4.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 22.07.2026

¶12

The Petitioner assails the office order dated 9^th June, 2026, issued by the Housing Allotment Committee¹ of Bhakra Beas Management Board, whereby the allotment of residential accommodation bearing House No. I- 108, BBMB Colony, Thyagraj Nagar, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, in her favour has been cancelled with immediate effect.

¶13

The Petitioner is employed as a Deputy Superintendent with Respondent No. 2. Upon her posting in the office of Respondent No. 3 at Kaka Nagar, New Delhi, the aforesaid accommodation was allotted to her by an order dated 19^th October, 2023.

¶14

By an order dated 27^th August, 2025, the Petitioner was transferred to

¶15

1 “HAC”

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 15:32:52

¶18

Nangal, Punjab. She challenged the transfer in W.P.(C) 16878/2025, wherein interim protection was granted permitting her to continue in Delhi until 31^st March, 2026, having regard to the educational requirements of her school-going daughter. The said petition was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter, by an order dated 27^th April, 2026, the Respondents posted the Petitioner at their office in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, and permitted her to continue serving in Delhi until her daughter completed Class XII or until 31^st March, 2027, whichever was earlier.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner submits that, notwithstanding her continued posting in Delhi, the impugned order cancels the allotment with immediate effect. It is contended that the impugned order merely states that the decision was taken on the recommendation of the HAC, without disclosing the basis on which the allotment was found liable to be cancelled. It is further submitted that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner before the impugned decision was taken.

¶20

The Petitioner has submitted a representation dated 12^th June, 2026 seeking withdrawal of the impugned order, inter alia , on the grounds that the cancellation is unsupported by reasons and was effected without affording her an opportunity of hearing. The representation is stated to be pending consideration.

¶21

The impugned order visits the Petitioner with immediate civil consequences, yet neither discloses the reasons for cancellation nor indicates the provision or condition of allotment which the Petitioner is stated to have contravened. The Petitioner was also not put to notice of the proposed action or afforded an opportunity to place her position before the competent authority. In these circumstances, and particularly when her representation

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 15:32:52

¶24

against the cancellation remains undecided, the matter warrants reconsideration by the competent authority after affording her an opportunity of hearing.

¶25

This Court is, however, not called upon at this stage to determine the Petitioner’s substantive entitlement to retain the accommodation. That issue shall be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable allotment rules, having due regard to the Petitioner’s present place of posting and the terms of the order dated 27^th April, 2026.

¶26

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the Petitioner’s representation dated 12^th June, 2026, after affording her an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a period of two weeks from today.

¶27

Until the representation is decided, the operation of the impugned order dated 9^th June, 2026 shall remain in abeyance and no coercive steps shall be taken to dispossess the Petitioner from the allotted accommodation. In the event the competent authority decides to reaffirm the cancellation, the decision shall be communicated to the Petitioner by a reasoned order and shall not be given effect to for a period of one week from the date of its communication.

¶28

The petition, along with the pending application(s), is disposed of in the above terms. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.

¶29

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶30

JULY 22, 2026 as

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/07/2026 at 15:32:52

Renu Dhayal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Renu Dhayal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Lac Vivek Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Preeti Sharma & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vikas Verma Vs Motor Licensing Officer

Prabhu Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gautam Kishore Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Syed Naved Faisal Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Banty Yadav & Ors.

M/S Retail through Gagan Gandhi Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs through Its Chairman & Anr.

Shri Chand Vs Delhi Commission for Women & Anr.

Kamal Jit Singh Vs Guru Tegh Bahadur Institute of Technology and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sandeep Kaur & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Sharma Vs Directorate of Education and Anr.

Kunwar Pramod Vs Shiksha Bharti Global School and Anr.