In a writ petition, a government employee challenged orders directing her shift from a D type quarter to an E type quarter after her promotion. The High Court of Kerala held that she had no right to advise eviction of higher-category officers waiting for allotment to enjoy an ineligible quarter and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
ASHALATHA S., AGED 39 YEARS DRAFTSMAN GRADE-I, GCDA, KOCHI-682020.
BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
2 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KOCHI-682020.
3 THE SECRETARY, GCDA, KOCHI-682020.
4 SHAINI E.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, GCDA, KOCHI-682020.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MINI.V.A, SC, GCDA,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
2
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges the orders directing her to shift from D type quarter to E type quarter.
Gr.II, she was allotted a D type quarters, as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.01.2013. Ext.P2 order was issued on the basis of an order issued by the Chairman on 18.01.2013, on conditions stipulated therein. Petitioner submits that such an allotment was made by the Chairman on the basis of her application submitted on medical grounds as she was undergoing medical treatment for infertility and also for Uterine Fibroids. While continuing so, she received Ext.P1 order dated 09.08.2018, directing her to vacate the quarters, stating that 4th respondent, who is an Assistant Engineer, was allotted the same. Petitioner was asked to shift to an E type quarter, which was being occupied by Smt.Manju Javahar. Petitioner thereupon submitted an appeal before the Secretary and approached this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 13.09.2018 in
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
3
W.P.(C) No. 29508 of 2018, directed consideration of the
said appeal and pending consideration, it was directed that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the same quarter. Thereupon, the Executive Committee, as per Ext.P4, decided not to vary the original decision on allotment of E type quarters to petitioner. Thereafter as per Ext.P5 order dated 23.10.2018, the petitioner was again directed to shift her residence to E1 quarters. Aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, petitioner submitted an application under Rule 48 of the GCDA Family Quarters Allotment and Occupation Rules, 1989. Respondents have thereafter issued Ext.P8 order on 23.11.2018 informing
that the Chairman has ordered not to consider the application as the Executive Committee has already considered her appeal and rejected the same. Petitioner was again directed to shift to the E1 quarters.
challenging Ext.P8 order as well as the orders Exts.P1 and P4 and seeking a direction to the first respondent
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
4
to consider her application Ext.P8. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P2 allotment was made by the Chairman, on compassionate grounds, to undergo infertility treatment, the Chairman ought to have considered her application submitted under Rule 48.
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
5
promotion as Assistant Town Planner as per order dated 04.09.2018, that too subject to seniority. At the same time, the 4th respondent, who is an Assistant Engineer, was allotted only an E type quarter and by Ext.P1 order, she is allotted D type quarter occupied by the petitioner. Petitioner submits that several persons, who retired from service and several persons, who are not eligible for allotment of D type quarters, are occupying the same and therefore, the respondents have to evict such persons and allot such quarters to the 4th respondent.
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
6
categories are waiting for allotment petitioner does not have any right to advise the respondents to evict others and to allot such quarter to the 4th respondent.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents. The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.801/ESTATE/A-1/12/GCDA DATED 09/08/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.801/ESTATE/A-1/12/GCDA DATED 21/01/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 01/09/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.126/201819 DATED 28/09/2018 OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER, GCDA DATED 23/10/2018 IN FILE NO.801/ESTATE/A1/2012/GCDA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/10/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.801/ESTATE/A1/12/GCDA DATED 23/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 OF THE GCDA
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LSGD/IA/3/38/2018 DATED 04.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE
WP(C).No. 39008 of 2018
8
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE SECRETARY, GCDA
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.801/ESTATE/A1/12/GCDA DATED 04.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE GCDA ADDRESSED TO SMT.SHINI E.K. AND COPIED TO ASHALATHA.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.800/ESTATE/A1/GCDA DATED 25.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE GCDA TO PREENA A.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST FOR ALLOTMENT OF D TYPE QUARTERS.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be directed to vacate a D type quarter allotted on compassionate grounds in her favor and shift to an E type quarter.
Whether the Apex Court can direct eviction of ineligible occupants to allot a quarter to an eligible person who awaits her seniority turn.
Whether the Continuing authority can reconsider the Executive Committee's decision not to vary the original allotment order after the petitioner's appeal was rejected.
ASHALATHA S.
GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THE SECRETARY, GCDA
SHAINI E.K.
P.V.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
