Tribunal refuses to interfere in house allotment rule amendments by Chandigarh

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 29

While refusing to interfere in the amendments made in the house allotment rules by the UT Administration, the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has dismissed an appeal of Priti Malhotra, a member of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, seeking quashing of the orders of the Administration rejecting her request for the retention of a government accommodation consequent to her re-appointment as the member of the commission.

Priti was allotted the government house during her previous term as a member of the commission. She was initially appointed as the member (women) of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, on a whole-time basis for a period of five years vide order dated March 24, 2015. She completed her tenure on March 26, 2020. She was re-appointed on the same post on a whole-time basis w.e.f. March 27, 2020. She was allotted a government house in September 2015 by the Administration. She made requests to the Administration to allow her to retain the same house in her second tenure also.

The Chandigarh Administration, vide its notification in July 2019, has amended Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996. The amended rules say only chairpersons of Human Rights Commissions, Lokayuktas, Chief Information Commissioners, State Election Commissioners and Chief Commissioners of Right to Service/Transparency and Accountability Commissions as established by the State Government of Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh Administration will be entitled for government accommodation. The application of any other commission/authority constituted by state government/UT Administration will not be considered irrespective of any provision in their appointment letter. They can be provided financial compensation for securing accommodation by their appointing authority.

The UT has also amended another rule in March 2020 by which the rate of penal rent has been enhanced manifold.

Malhotra contended she continues to hold the post of the member, District Commission, right from 2015 without even a day’s break and as such, no change in allotment of government accommodation could be made in her case as her terms and conditions of the service remain the same as in her earlier tenure in the office. In view of this, she has sought quashing of the orders issued by the Estate Office cancelling her accommodation and levying the penal rent as per the amended rules.

After hearing the arguments, the CAT Bench noted that the appointment of the applicant is not in continuation. Re-appointment is different from continuation as it involves going through a process of selection resulting in fresh appointment. The Consumer Protection Act as well as the rules do not provide for continuation. They only provide for appointment and re-appointment of president and members. So, she was obviously to be governed by the notification of July 2019 issued by the Administration.

The Bench said the July 2019 amendment to rules was a general amendment and reflected a policy decision taken by the government. It was not for this Tribunal to interfere in the policy decisions of the government.

“In view of clear provisions of the amendment notification, the applicant is not entitled to government accommodation. She has no vested right for claiming government accommodation and the same is not part of her appointment letter or terms and conditions of her service as provided in the relevant rules. As such, I do not see any reason for interfering in the executive order cancelling her government accommodation,” says the order passed by Ajanta Dayalan, member (A) of CAT.