Government accommodation is not meant for the retirees; right to shelter does not mean right to government accommodation: Supreme Court

By - Divisha Srivastava*

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to shelter does not imply the right to government housing and overruled a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which permitted a retired Intelligence Bureau officer to stay in government accommodation.

Post his retirement as an official of the Intelligence Bureau in Delhi, Onkar Nath Dhar (Respondent), a Kashmiri migrant, requested that the government may allow him to keep the residence assigned to him for a modest licence fee until the situation in Jammu & Kashmir improves and the government allows him to return to his hometown.

Also Read - Political parties are to publish information regarding criminal antecedents of candidates within 48 hours of selection: Supreme Court

However, he was charged under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act of 1971. The respondent contested this at the Faridabad District Court, but his plea was dismissed. Later, the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on a Supreme Court decision in J L. Koul v. State of J&K and allowed his petition on the ground that he could not return to his home state.

However on the law laid down in J L. Koul v. State of J&K, the Supreme Court observed that,  “the direction issued in J.L. Kaul that the retirees shall continue to possess the accommodation in their possession is a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution.”

Also Read - When it is a case of medical negligence, it need not be because of mens rea as intent: Supreme Court

The respondent based his contention on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, according to which the right to shelter is a fundamental right. The respondent was an Intelligence Bureau official who was drawing his salary and received alternate housing for 15 years after his retirement, coupled with pensionary benefits, according to the court.

The supreme court held that government accommodations are intended for serving officers and officials, not retirees, as a gesture of goodwill and sharing of wealth. The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna went on to say that sympathy, however sincere, does not grant a retired individual the right to continue to live in government housing.

Also Read - Explanation 3C to Section 43B(d) of Income Tax Act is clarificatory and does not purport to add a new condition retrospectively: Supreme Court

The court also directed the Centre to submit a report on the actions taken against retired government employees who are still in government accommodation as a result of High Court orders.

CLICK HERE TO READ JUDGMENT.

*Divisha Srivastava is a 1st year student pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from S.N.D.T School of Law, Mumbai, Maharashtra.