UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus ONKAR NATH DHAR

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 05-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
v.
ONKAR NATH DHAR
(Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2014)
AUGUST 05, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ]
Constitution of India:
Art. 21 – Right to claim government accommodation, if falls
under the right to shelter – Held: Right to shelter does not mean
right to government accommodation – Government accommodation
is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees
who have demitted office, as a benevolence and distribution of
largesse – No exception for persons who held constitutional posts
– Allowing the displaced persons to retain the Government
accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative
accommodation that too with a nominal licence fee defeats the very
purpose of the Government accommodation which is meant for
serving officers – On facts, the High Court allowed the government
officer-Kashmiri migrant, to retain government accommodation after
retirement, on basis of compassion showed to displaced persons on
account of terrorist activities in the State,  relying on J L Koul case
– Orders passed by the High Court wholly arbitrary and irrational,
in the absence of any policy of allotment of government
accommodation to a retired government servant, who may be victim
of terrorism - Order passed by the High Court set aside  –
Government officer granted time to hand over vacant physical
possession of the premises, after 15 years of his attaining the age
of superannuation – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupant) Act, 1971.
Art. 142 – Applicability of the case of J.L. Koul v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir – Direction in J.L. Koul’s case, that accepting the
rehabilitation scheme finalized by the State Government, retired
government employees allowed to stay in the government
accommodation even after retirement for safety reasons, in terms of
Art. 142 – Held: Direction given on special facts, in exercise of
jurisdiction under Art. 142 not a binding precedent – J L Koul’ case
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 194
194
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
195
was based on special facts and direction was in terms of Art. 142 –
Thus, the orders passed by the High Court relying on JL Koul’s case
without any basis and, JL Koul’s case is inapplicable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Government accommodation could not have
been allotted to a person who had demitted office. No exception
was carved out even in respect of the persons who held
Constitutional posts at one point of time. The Government
accommodation is only meant for in-service officers and not for
the retirees or those who have demitted office. Therefore, the
view of the Delhi High Court and that of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court is erroneous on the basis of compassion showed to
displaced persons on account of terrorist activities in the State.
The compassion could be shown for accommodating  the displaced
persons for one or two months but to allow them to retain the
Government accommodation already allotted or to allot an
alternative accommodation that too with a nominal licence fee
defeats the very purpose of the Government accommodation
which is meant for serving officers. The compassion howsoever
genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing
to occupy a government accommodation. [Para 13][206-G-H; 207-
A-C]
1.2 According to a policy framed by the government, a
displaced person is to be lodged in a transit accommodation and
if it is not available then cash compensation is to be provided.
But the displaced persons cannot occupy government
accommodation. If a retired government employee had no
residence, they have an option to avail transit accommodation or
to receive cash compensation in the place of transit
accommodation. The right of shelter is taken care of when
alternative Transit accommodation is made available to the
migrants to meet out the emergent situation. There is no policy
of the Central Government or the State Government to provide
accommodation to displaced persons on account of terrorism in
the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Such directions of the Delhi High
Court and of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is de hors any
policy of allotting accommodation to the migrants under the guise
of the right to shelter which is clearly in excess of jurisdiction
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. ONKAR NATH DHAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
vested with the Courts. The hardship faced by them does not
lead to a corresponding duty of the State to pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.