LexSH. P.G.GUPTA ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SH. P.G.GUPTA ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. DECEMBER 14, 1994 B [K. RAMASWAMY, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] c D E F G H Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 19 (J)(e) and 21-Right to residence. Article 14-Equality--Cut off date-Housing Scheme-Resolution for converting rental basis scheme into hire purchase-Criteria for allotment with reference to date fixed in resolution held not arbitrary. Housing-Government Housing Scheme-Allotment to Government employees-Conversion from rental scheme to hire purchase scheme- Government Resolution approving scheme-Eligibility Criteria- Requirement of continuous residence for fzve years-Challenge to allotment scheme-Quashing of only two eligible categories of employees by High Court-First those allotted better accommodation by Government and were consequently not in possession for five years on the date of reso/ution- Secondly, those transferred on permanent basis-Exclusion of these two categories held not arbitrary. In a Lower Income Group ~ousing Scheme 396 houses were constructed at Pahari at Ahmedabad and were allotted to Government employees on rental basis. Subsequently the State Government obtained sanction from the Central Government to convert the rental scheme into hire purchase scheme for allotment to the Govt. employees. As per the criteria for allotment continuous residence for five years was necessary. Further retired Govt. servants were excluded from the scheme. Consequently, on April 17, 1971, the Govt. passed a resolution under which 200 houses were converted from rental basis scheme to hire purchase scheme. Thereafter, the Government re-considered the matter and by its resolution dated June 22, 1972 resolved to allot all the 396 houses to the Government employees on hire purchase basis. Under the Resolution Category III and VI of employees were inter alia entitled to the benefit of said scheme. Category III was of those employees who were working in secretariat and were originally allotted the house at Pahari but later allotted better accommodation at Gandhinager. In Category VI there were employees who were transferred outside 628 i P.G.GUPTA v. STATE 629 Ahmedabad on permanent basis. The said scheme of allotment was A challenged before the Gujarat High Court which took into .account the criteria of June 22, 1972 as last date for fixing the entitlement for the priorities mentioned in the resolution and upheld the validity of the scheme save and except priority categories III and VI. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant B that (i) in view of the compulsion by the State Government Category III employees had shifted from Pahari to Gandhinager, therefore, they cannot be deprived of their entitlement to allotment on hire purchase basis; and (ii) the denial of benefit of the scheme to Category VJ employees violates Articles 14, 19 and 21; the High Court committed manifest error of law in denying the benefit to the said Category C inasmuch as none had challenged the entitlement of allotment to that category. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD: 1. There is no illegality in excluding employees of cate- D gories (iii) and (vi) for allotment under hire purchase scheme. (636 DJ 2. It is true that initially when the Government of India had given sanction for converting 396 lower income group houses from rental scheme to hire purchase scheme, category III employees were in occupation of the respective allotted houses. It is seen that they had E vacated the respective premises as they were allotted government houses having better accommodation at Gandhinagar with concessional rates. But on the date of the resolution passed by the government, admittedly, they were not in possession of the houses at Pahari or some of them were in illegal occupation. In these circumstances, the conclusion reached by the High Court that the category III employees F are not entitled to the allotment, is just and reasonable. It is not vitiated by any error of law. [632 F, G) 3. It is true, that a date has to be fixed with reference to a particular case and fixation of any date always may appear to be arbitrary. But some connection has to be established for fixation of the G date of allotment of the houses. In this case, since the government had taken decision on June 22, 1972, to convert the rental basis scheme into hire purchase scheme that date bears rational rela
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.