(Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
Vibhu Shankar, Advocate ___________________________ Appellant
v.
State of U.P. and Ors. __________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2018 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10561 of 2017], decided on July 5, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appellant is an advocate practising in the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow. His case is that the suit premises were allotted under a Middle Income Group Housing Scheme, 1956 by the Union of India and that his father and his grand father had fulfilled the necessary eligibility conditions under the said scheme, as a result of which the suit premises were allotted to his father by allotment letter dated 08.02.1960. His father was also an advocate, who died on 23.01.2003, as a result of which the appellant, who Stayed and resided in the premises since 1963 applied immediately for allotment of the aforesaid premises.
3. By an Order dated 31.03.2004, the Deputy Secretary of the State referred to Rule 10(g)(4) of the 1962 Rules and non suited the applicant, stating that he was not a government employee and, therefore, had no right to the aforesaid premises. A writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court ended by dismissal by the impugned order dated 21.03.2017.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. We are of the view that the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme, 1956 referred to both government employees as well as non-government employees with the necessary stated conditions of eligibility for allotment. It is not in dispute that the appellant’s father was a non-government employee, who was allotted the aforesaid premises, who died on 23.01.2003. The sole reason for denying the appellant’s application for allotment is on the ground that he is not a government employee. This ground is obviously not available, for the reason that the appellant’s application made it clear that he was not a government employee, but stated that he had resided in the premises as a part of the family and that his father was validly allotted this premises way back in 1960. We are of the view that Rule 10(g)(4) which applies to government employees will not non-suit the appellant in the present case. If otherwise eligible under law, the respondent will dispose of the application of the appellant of 2003, and grant allotment.
5. Accordingly, we set-aside the judgment and order dated 21.03.2017. It will be open for the appellant to make a fresh representation to the Government within a period of four weeks from today, which the Government will decide on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. Interim order passed in the present case will continue until the representation made by the appellant is disposed of by the respondent. The State Government is directed to dispose of the aforesaid representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the same.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10561/2017
Vibhu Shankar, Advocate _____________________________ Petitioner
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors ___________________ Respondent(s)
(FOR ON IA 2/2017 and IA No. 22589/2018-APPLICATION TO TAKE ON RECORD ADDITIONAL AND SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT
Date : 05-07-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before Rohinton Fali Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Suhail Dutt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Benant Noor Singh Marok, Adv.
Mr. Raj Kamal, AOR
Mr. Sankalp, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal, AOR
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
7. Leave granted.
8. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
