# 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 881 MRS. ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 13 S.C.R. 881
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-08-30
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7524 of 2011
- **Bench:** Or: 8.5. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-addl-s-c-r-881-mrs-asha-sharma-v-chandigarh-administration-and-ors-27342
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996:
A
B
c
r. 13 - Allotment of accommodation - Appellant, an !AS
Officer was allotted government accommodation in
Chandigarh - She retired from service and was r.equired to
vacate the premises by 31st December, 2008 - On 31st
December, 2008, she was appointed as the State Information D
Commissioner -
She requested to the authorities for
allotment of the government accommodation already in her
occupation, but her request was not accepted - Estate Officer
passed an eviction order against the appellant which was
upheld by the appellate authority - Writ petition - The Single
E
Judge of the High Court directed that as soon as a'ny alternate
accommodation is allotted to appellant, as per her entitlement
under the Rules, she shall, within two weeks of such allotment,
vacate the house presently under her occupation - However,
the Division Bench stayed the directions of the Single Judge
F
and directed the matter to be heard by a larger Bench - On
appeal, held: No new house for any category/post should be
earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such
category/post has been vacated and placed in the general
pool of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment in
accordance with the Allotment Rules - No case of retention
G
of government accommodation beyond the periods specified
in the table to r. 13(2) of the Allotment Rules shall be
entertained by any authority under the Allotment Rules - An
order of eviction and damages was passed against the
881
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A appellant - The matter in that behalf is still pending final
hearing before the Single Judge - The parties are left to raise
all their contentions before the Single Judge, who shall decide
the matter in accordance with law - However, with regard to
the interim· order passed by the High Court, the State is
B directed to allot to her an alternative accommodation under
the category as per her entitlement, in pursuance of her
appointment as State Information Commissioner, within fifteen
days and she shall be liable to vacate the accommodation
presently in her occupation within two weeks thereafter- In the
c event the Government is unable to allot her an alternative
accommodation of her category for the reason of nonavailability of such accommodation, she should be provided
with appropriate accommodation, including private
accommodation of he_r status, within the same period.
D
r. 7 - Earmarking of houses - Held: r. 7 provides for
earmarking of houses for specified officers from different
branches of the State Administration and those houses which
have not been so earmarked for any particular class of
Government employees would be allotted to the general pool
E of the Chandigarh Administration - This Rule and its subRules read together do not suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness, as earmarking of houses is a known concept in
relation to allotment of houses - In the instant case, the Single
Judge of the High Court gave a clarificatory direction that when
F earmarked houses are occupied by an officer, who is at that
time not entitled to that house, another house would not be
earmarked for any particular officer, until the occupied house
is vacated - One exception was carved out in favour of SSP,
Chandigarh - This clarificatory direction is not violative of any
G rule or is otherwise impermissible -
These directions
attempted to ensure that there should not be more than one
earmarked house for the same post as per the need - This
would also ensure timely vacation of the earmarked houses
by the officers concerned, upon their transfer, promotion or
H posting to a post where they are not entitled to an earmarked
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 883
AND ORS.
accommodation -
There is no reason to interfere with
A
imposition of such a condition which is in conformity with the
spirit of the said Rule.
r. 11 - Out-of-Turn Allotments - Held: s. 11 deals with

## Text

_Characters 0–39,894 of 85,279. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39894 for what follows._

[2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 881
MRS. ASHA SHARMA
v.
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7524 of 2011)
AUGUST 30, 2011
[OR: 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)
Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996:
A
B
c
r. 13 - Allotment of accommodation - Appellant, an !AS
Officer was allotted government accommodation in
Chandigarh - She retired from service and was r.equired to
vacate the premises by 31st December, 2008 - On 31st
December, 2008, she was appointed as the State Information D
Commissioner -
She requested to the authorities for
allotment of the government accommodation already in her
occupation, but her request was not accepted - Estate Officer
passed an eviction order against the appellant which was
upheld by the appellate authority - Writ petition - The Single
E
Judge of the High Court directed that as soon as a'ny alternate
accommodation is allotted to appellant, as per her entitlement
under the Rules, she shall, within two weeks of such allotment,
vacate the house presently under her occupation - However,
the Division Bench stayed the directions of the Single Judge
F
and directed the matter to be heard by a larger Bench - On
appeal, held: No new house for any category/post should be
earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such
category/post has been vacated and placed in the general
pool of the Chandigarh Administration for allotment in
accordance with the Allotment Rules - No case of retention
G
of government accommodation beyond the periods specified
in the table to r. 13(2) of the Allotment Rules shall be
entertained by any authority under the Allotment Rules - An
order of eviction and damages was passed against the
881
H
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A appellant - The matter in that behalf is still pending final
hearing before the Single Judge - The parties are left to raise
all their contentions before the Single Judge, who shall decide
the matter in accordance with law - However, with regard to
the interim· order passed by the High Court, the State is
B directed to allot to her an alternative accommodation under
the category as per her entitlement, in pursuance of her
appointment as State Information Commissioner, within fifteen
days and she shall be liable to vacate the accommodation
presently in her occupation within two weeks thereafter- In the
c event the Government is unable to allot her an alternative
accommodation of her category for the reason of nonavailability of such accommodation, she should be provided
with appropriate accommodation, including private
accommodation of he_r status, within the same period.
D
r. 7 - Earmarking of houses - Held: r. 7 provides for
earmarking of houses for specified officers from different
branches of the State Administration and those houses which
have not been so earmarked for any particular class of
Government employees would be allotted to the general pool
E of the Chandigarh Administration - This Rule and its subRules read together do not suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness, as earmarking of houses is a known concept in
relation to allotment of houses - In the instant case, the Single
Judge of the High Court gave a clarificatory direction that when
F earmarked houses are occupied by an officer, who is at that
time not entitled to that house, another house would not be
earmarked for any particular officer, until the occupied house
is vacated - One exception was carved out in favour of SSP,
Chandigarh - This clarificatory direction is not violative of any
G rule or is otherwise impermissible -
These directions
attempted to ensure that there should not be more than one
earmarked house for the same post as per the need - This
would also ensure timely vacation of the earmarked houses
by the officers concerned, upon their transfer, promotion or
H posting to a post where they are not entitled to an earmarked
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 883
AND ORS.
accommodation -
There is no reason to interfere with
A
imposition of such a condition which is in conformity with the
spirit of the said Rule.
r. 11 - Out-of-Turn Allotments - Held: s. 11 deals with OutB
of-Turn Allotments, i.e. the House Allotment Committee may
allot a house on Out-of-Turn basis to the cases specified
under clauses (a) to (g) of that Rule -
r. 11 is a very
comprehensive rule which deals with the specific situations
where Out-of-Turn Allotment is permissible - The Allotment
Rules and the guidelines are intended to control the exercise
of discretion by the authorities concerned in granting Out-ofC
Tum Allotments - In the instant case, the absolute restriction
on Out-of-Tum Allotments imposed by the Single Judge of
the High Court was not just and fair and was opposed to the
statutory provisions of the Allotment Rules - Therefore, such
a restriction is not sustainable.
D
r. 8 - Interpretation of - Held: The purpose of r. 8 is not to
allow discretionary allotment but is to provide overall powers
of coordination and control to the Administrator, U. T.,
Chandigarh - The words 'for the purposes of allotment to any
class or category of eligible government servant' appearing
in r. 8 mean the allotment made in terms of the Allotment
Rules - Adding or withdrawing houses to the general pool is
a power vested in the authority under r. 8, but allotments still
are to be made in accordance with the substantive rules
enabling the authorities to make regular allotments.
E
F
r. 9 - Objections regarding allotment of accommodation
- Held: r. 9 requires the authorities to invite applications for
allotment of accommodation and also provides the manner
in which the allotment of houses is to be made including
G
showing the seniority of the applicants category-wise - There
is no provision requiring invitation of objections - Once there
is no rule, it will not serve any fruitful purpose to invite
objections to each allotment apart from unnecessarily
delaying allotments and rendering the working of the Rules
H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A more complex and difficult - Further, r.9(5) of the Allotment
Rules is a complete safeguard in regard to proper
maintenance of the seniority list of the applicants -
The
directions issued by the Single Judge regarding invitation of
objections from aggrieved officers who might assert
B preferential claim is set aside.
r. 11 - Issues regarding the allotment of two houses to a
single officer and/or to his family, one in Chandigarh and one
in some other part of the same State; and the period of
C retention of the allotted house after the employee is retired,
promoted, transferred or is sent on deputation - Held: -The
said issue is of serious concern - There is no rule providing
that an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh!Panchkulal
Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any Government
accommodation of any category can be provided with two
D houses, one at the District/Division level to which he/she is
transferred and another at Chandigarh and its adjourning
areas - In absence of any such specific rule, it is directed that
the State shall not allot two different houses to one government
servant - In terms of r.11(1)(b) of the Allotment Rules, such
E allotment can be made in some circumstances but every effort
should be made to ensure that such situations arise only in
exceptional circumstances.
r. 13 - Retention of government accommodation - Held:
F A government servant cannot be permitted to retain the
accommodation beyond 4 to 6 months, which period is
permissible under the substantive rules - A government
servant knows in advance the period within which he has to
vacate the accommodation allotted to him as part of his
G employment and so he has to surrender the house in
question within the scheduled time - rr.13(1) and 13(2) are
comprehensive, specific and provide more than reasonable
time for a government servant to vacate the accommodation
a/lott~d to him/her - Court cannot Jose sight of the fact that a
large number of employees under different categories are
H awaiting their allotments and are being deprived of this benefit
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 885
AND ORS.
for long periods because of excessive invocation of such
A
discretionary powers - The provision is unguided and arbitrary
and cannot stand the scrutiny of law - More so, the licence
fee indicated is obviously minimal in comparison to the
market rent for the said premises - It is a matter which a Court
can safely take judicial notice of -
Compelled by these
B
circumstances, r. 13(5) is not sustainable and the authorities
are directed not to take recourse to the said provision under
any circumstance - No case of retention of government
accommodation beyond the periods specified in the table to
r. 13(2) shall be entertained by any authority under the c
Allotment Rules - The directions are passed being conscious
of the fact that the Allotment Rules are in place and that the
authorities are acting fairly and judiciously.
Allotment of accommodation - Duty of authorities - Held:
The authorities are expected to be consistent in their decisions
D
and bring certainty to the Allotment Rules - This can only be
done by making fair, judicious and reasoned decisions on the
one hand and refraining from amending the Allotment Rules
except in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances on the
other - The Doctrine of Certainty can appropriately be applied
E
to legislative powers as it is applicable to judicial
pronouncements - This would not mean that the power of the
Legislature to amend rules is restricted by judicial
pronouncements - But it is impressed upon the Legislature
that the rules of the present kind should not be amended so
F
frequently that no established practice or settled impression
may be formed in the minds of the employees - Where the
employer has limited resources, there the employee has a
legitimate expectation of being dealt with fairly in relation to
allotment to such government accommodation.
G
Administrative law:
Decision making process -
Arbitrariness in - Held:
Whenever both the decision making process and the decision
taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A considerations, such an action can normally be termed as
'arbitrary' - Where the process of decision making is followed
but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a
conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of
arbitrariness - Of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the
B reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within
the scope of judicial review - Rationality, reasonableness,
objectivity, application of mind and transparency are some of
the pre-requisites of proper decision making.
C
Policy decisions - Judicial 1eview - Scope of- Held: The
Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and
policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under
the prevalent peculiar circumstances - The Court may not
strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely
because it feels that another decision would have been more
D fair or wise, scientific or logical - Even if no rules are in force
to govern executive action, still such action, especially if it
could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just,
fair and transparent -
Allotment of Government
accommodation is one of the statutory benefits which a
E Government servant is entitled to under the Allotment Rules
and, therefore, fair implementation of these Rules is a sine
qua non to fair exercise of authority and betterment. of the
employee-employer relationship bf!tween the Government
servant and the Government - Government Residences
F
(Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules,
1996.
State action - Scope of judicial review of such actions -
Held: Court has power, depending on the facts and
G circumstances of a given case, to issue appropriate directions
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India (by the High Court) and under Article 32 read with
Article 141. of the Constitution of India (by the Supreme Court)
- The Supreme Court in the process of interpreting the law
H can remove any lacunae and fill up the gaps by laying down
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 887
AND ORS.
the directions with reference to the dispute before it; but A
normally it cannot declare a new law to be of general
application in the same manner as the Legislature may do -
The courts can issue directions with regard to the dispute in
a particular case, but should be very reluctant to issue
directions which are legislative in nature - Because of the new
B
dimensions which constitutional law has come to include, it
becomes imperative for the courts in some cases, to pass
directions to ensure that statutory or executive authorities do
not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or contrary to the settled
laws.
c
Administrative Jurisprudence - Held: It is a settled canon
of Administrative Jurisprudence that wider the power
conferred, more onerous is the responsibility to ensure that
such power is not exercised in excess of what is required or
relevant for the case and the decision.
D
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Articles 32 and 226
- Held: Confer on the Supreme Court and the High Court the
power to issue directions, orders or writs for achieving the
objectives of those Articles - In public interest, the courts may
E
pass directions and even appoint committees for inducing the
Government to carry out the constitutional mandate - The
courts have been taking due care while exercising such
jurisdiction so that they do not overstep the circumscribed
judicial limits.
F
The appellant was an IAS Officer and was allotted
government accommodation in Chandigarh. She retired
from service on 28th February, 2007. As per the
Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 which has been
G
amended from time to time, she was entitled to retain the
Government accommodation, previously allotted to her
while she was in service, for a period of four months with
further possible extension upto six months, in terms of
Rule 13 of the Allotment Rules. This extension could be
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A granted only in exceptional cases. Thus, she was
required to vacate the residential premises allotted to her
by 31st December, 2008. On 31st December, 2008, the
appellant was C!PPOinted as the State Information
Commissioner. As per the terms of appointment, she was
B entitled to Government accommodation and salary/
allowances of the same type and amount as were given
to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana. She
applied to the authorities concerned requesting for
allotment of the government accommodation already in
c her occupation, but her request was not accepted. On
16th April, 2008, the Estate Officer passed an eviction
order against the appellant. The appellate authority
upheld the order. The appellant filed a writ petition before
the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court
0 passed certain general directions in relation to the
procedure for allotment of Government houses, their
retention and various other aspects relating thereto. The
Single Judge directed that as soon as any alternate
accommodation is allotted to the appellant, as per her
entitlement under the Rules, she shall, within two weeks
E of such allotment, vacate the house presently under her
occupation. It was further directed that no allotment
should be made in exercise of the discretionary powers
of the Administrator, UT., or Chief Ministers of Punjab and
Haryana; that no house should be allotted 'out of turn'
F without prior permission of the Court; that no house
should be 'earmarked' for any particular office/officer till
the earlier 'earmarked' house which were subsequently
'de-earmarked' and allowed to be retained by the officers,
who were not entitled to such allotment as their seniors
G in terms of pay, rank or status were still awaiting
allotment of that Type or above houses, are got vacated
except in the case of the SSP, Chandigarh in relation to
whom one time concession has been granted by order
dated 07 .03.2011; that a list of the 'prospective allottees'
H should be prepared and displayed on the websites of the
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 889
AND ORS.
Chandigarh Administration two weeks in advance inviting A
objections, if any, from the aggrieved officers/officials
who might ·assert their preferential claim and only after
considering/deciding their objections, the allotment
letters should be issued; that no further 'addition' of the
houses should be made to the discretionary quota of the
B
Chief Ministers of Punjab and Haryana nor the
possession of the vacant houses exceeding the said
quota should be given to the allottees. On appeal, the
Division Bench stayed the directions of the Single Judge
and directed the matter to be heard by a larger Bench. c
The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the
Division Bench of the High Court.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:
1.1. The
allotment of government D
accommodation is governed by the statutory regime and
the Allotment Rules are concerned with various facets of
this concept. The Government Residences (Chandigarh
Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 cover
concepts such as allotment, vacation, cancellation and
E
preferential allotments of government accommodations.
Despite the fact that the Allotment Rules are in force their
proper implementation still remains an elusive
endeavour. The grievance of the officers/officials has still
persisted with regard to the manner in which the
F
discretion under the Rules were being exercised. In other
words, the element of discretion vested under these rules
has
caused
serious
dissatisfacti~n with
the
implementation of these Allotment Rules. [para 8] [905-H;
906-A-C]
G
1.2. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated
by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both
the decision making process and the decision taken are
based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant
considerations, such an action can normally be termed
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A as 'arbitrary'. Where the process of decision making is
followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving
at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category
of arbitrariness. Of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the
reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration
B within the scope of judicial review. Rationality,
reasonableness, objectivity, application of mind and
transparency are some of the pre-requisites of proper
decision making. [para 9] [906-D-E]
C
1.3. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic
adjustments and policy decisions, which may be
necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar
circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy
decision taken by the Government merely because it
feels that another decision would have been more fair or
D wise, scientific or logical. The principle of reasonableness
and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core
of our constitutional scheme and structure. Its
interpretation will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of a given case. Action by the State,
E whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in
consonance with the statutory provisions and rules.
Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action
·still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the
rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent.
F The standard of fairness is also dependant upon
certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons,
subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able
to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the
State is likely to take in a given situation. The Allotment
G Rules have been framed with the approval of this Court
and thereafter have been amended by the State
Government with the intention to give some clarity and
certainty to the implementation of the Allotment Rules,
rather than subjecting it to further challenge on the
H ground of arbitrariness or discrimination. A Government
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 891
AND ORS.
servant has a reasonable expectation of being dealt with A
justly and fairly in receiving rights that are granted to him/
her under the Allotment Rules. Allotment of Government
accommodation is one of the statutory benefits which a
Government servant is entitled to under the Allotment
Rules and, therefore, fair implementation of these Rules
B
is a sine qua non to fair exercise of authority and
betterment of the employee-employer relationship
between the Government servant and the Government.
[Paras 10, 11] [906-G-H; 907-B-H]
Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal (2000) 8 SCC 262; C
Ramana Dayaram Sheffy v. International Airport Authority of
India (1979) 3 SCC 489: 1979 (3) SCR 1014 - relied on.
1.4. Another settled principle of law, applicable to the
instant case, is the scope of judicial review of such D
actions, which is usually quite limited. The Court has the
power, depending on the facts and circumstances of a
given case, to issue appropriate directions in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
(by the High Court) and under Article 32 read with Article · E
141 of the Constitution of India (by this C9urt). It is a
settled canon of Constitutional Jurisprudence that this
Court in the process of interpreting the law can remove
any lacunae and fill up the gaps by laying down the
directions with reference to the dispute before it; but F
normally it cannot declare a new law to be of general
application in the same manner as the Legislature may
do. The courts can issue directions with regard to the
dispute in a particular case, but should be very reluctant
to issue directions which are legislative in nature. Be that G
as it may, because of the new dimensions which
constitutional law has come to include, it becomes
imperative for the courts in some cases, to pass directions
to ensure that statutory or executive authorities do not
act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or contrary to the settled H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A laws. It was in light of these principles that this Court, vide
its judgment dated 7th May, 1996 set aside the Full Bench
Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
brought into force some appropriate rules and sought to
ensure that the competent authority acted in accordance
B with law and that it avoided total arbitrariness in allocation
of government houses to its officers and employees.
Once those rules came into force and were ameoded
from time to time as per the leave granted by this Court,
it was not proper exercise of judicial discretion and
c jurisdiction to pass directions, which were in direct
conflict with the Allotment Rules which were approved by
this Court or with the directions which were issued by this
Court on earlier occasions. [Paras 13, 15, 16] [908-C-D;
910-F-G; 911-A-E]
D
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka (2002) 4 SCC
578 - Followed.
E.S.P. Rajaram and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2001) 1 SCR 203; Union of India & Ors. v. M. Bhaskar & Ors.
E (1996) 4 SCC 416: 1996(2) Suppl. SCR 358; Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003) 7
SCC 546: 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 619; Reliance Airport
Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airport Authority of India and Ors.;
(2006) 10 sec 1: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 398; Chandigarh
F Administration v. Manpreet Singh (1992) 1 SCC 380; P.
Ramachandra Rao v. State of Kamataka (2002) 4 SCC 578
- relied on.
2. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution confer on
the Court and the High Court the power to issue
G directions, orders or writs for achieving the objectives of
those Articles. The courts, in the past, have issued
directions for various purposes. In public interest, the
courts may pass directions and even appoint committees
for ·inducing the Government to carry out the
H
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 893
AND ORS.
constitutional mandate. The courts have been taking due A
care while exercising such jurisdiction so that they do
not overstep the circumscribed judicial limits. The
Allotment rules were subjected to different amendments
from time to time and major amendments were carried out
in the years 1997, 1998, 2004, 2007 and 2009. Besides B
these, certain guidelines were also framed which became
part of the Allotment Rules. These amendments related
to changes in the definition clauses as well as the
substantive rules. This Court had granted leave by its
judgment dated 7th May, 1996 to the Chandigarh c
Administration to amend the rules, as and when. it
considered such amendment necessary. The leave
granted by this Court obviously meant that the
amendment should be necessity based and not be
intended to introduce the element of arbitrariness or D
discrimination in the rules and resultantly in the allotment
of the houses to the government officers/ officials. [paras
17, 20] [911-G-H; 912-A; 913-H; 914-A-D]
3.1. Rule 7 of the Allotment Rules, which deals with
the creation of pools of residences, provides for E
earmarking of houses for specified officers from different
branches of the State Administration and those houses
which have not been so earmarked for any particular
class of Government employees would be allotted to the
general pool of the Chandigarh Administration. This Rule
F
and its sub-Rules read together do not suffer from the
vice of arbitrariness, as earmarking of houses is a known
concept in relation to allotment of houses. The Single
Judge of the High Court has given a clarificatory direction
that when earmarked houses are occupied by an officer, G
who is at that time not entitled to that house, another
house would not be earmarked for any particular officer,
until the occupied house is vacated. One exception is
carved out in favour of SSP, Chandigarh in terms of order
dated 7th March, 2011. This clarificatory direction is not H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A violative of any rule or is otherwise impermissible. These
directions attempted to ensure that there should not be
more than one earmarked house for the same post as per
the need. This clarification or explanatory direction would
also ensure timely vacation of the earmarked houses by
B the officers concerned, upon their transfer, promotion or
posting to a post where they are not entitled to an
earmarked accommodation. Thus, there is no reason to
interfere with imposition of such a condition which is in
conformity with the spirit of the said Rule. It is directed
c that no new house for any category/post should be
earmarked unless the house already earmarked for such
category/post has been vacated and placed in the
general pool of the Chandigarh Administration for
allotment in accordance with the Allotment Rules. [para
D 23] (915-F-H; 916-A-D]
3.2. There is no specific rule controlling the
discretionary allotment by the Administrator, U.T.,
Chandigarh and the Chief Minister of State of Punjab and
Haryana respectively. However, Rule 8 identifies the
E Controlling Authority which is the Administrator, U.T.
Chandigarh, who would be the co-ordinating and
controlling authority in respect of the houses belonging
to Chandigarh Administration. He has been given the
power to add or withdraw houses from any pool for the
F purposes of allotment to any class or category of eligible
government employees and may also change the
classification of houses on the recommendation of the
House Allotment Committee. Rule 11 deals with Out-ofTurn Allotments, i.e. the House Allotment Committee may
G allot a house on Out-of-Turn basis to the cases specified
under clauses (a) to (g) of that Rule. The House Allotment
Committee in its Meeting dated 27th March, 2003 has
further approved certain guidelines for the Out-of-Turn
Allotments. Rule 11 is a very comprehensive rule which
H! deals with the specific situations where Out-of-Turn
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 895
AND ORS.
Allotment is permissible. The Allotment Rules and these A
guidelines are intended to control the exercise of
discretion by the authorities concerned in granting outof-turn allotments. There is some vagueness in Rule
11(1)(e), i.e. Out-of-Turn Allotments to a government
employee due to the 'functional requirements' of the post. B
This expression is neither explained nor have any
guidelines been issued in this regard. The criteria
provided in Guideline (2) for allotments made in public
interest under Rule 11 (1 )(f) is quite similar to the criteria
for determining functional requirements. Both these c
heads refer to the nature of official duties and functions
to be performed by the officer concerned. Thus, the
category of 'functional requirement' allotment is nothing
but a category created to allow more and more allotments
under this head. In light of these rules, the absolute D
restriction on Out-of-Turn Allotments imposed by the
Single Judge may not be just and fair and will be
opposed to the statutory provisions of the Allotment
Rules. Therefore, such a restriction is not sustainable.
However, the powers vested in the concerned authority E
under Rules 8 and 11 of the Allotment Rules will only be
·exercised: (a) upon recommendation of the House
Allotment Committee; (b) such recommendation should
be supported by reasons with the requirements of the job
and the data in support thereof; and (c) no allotments
would be made under the provisions of Rule 11(1)(e). The
F
maximum restriction of 10 per cent of all allotments being
Out.,of-Turn Allotments, as contemplated under Rule 11(2)
of the Allotment Rules, shall be operative to entire Rule
11 as well as to Rule 8 of the Allotment Rules. In no event
shall Out-of-Turn Allotment exceed 10 per cent of all G
houses allotted in a year. This is primarily to control the
exercise of discretionary power as well as to ensure that
the persons entitled to residential accommodation in the
general pool are not made to wait unduly for an indefinite
period. [paras 24, 25] [916-D-H; 917-A-H; 918-A]
H
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
3.3. Allotments under different categories and with
the restrictions as stated in the Allotment Rules and the
guidelines shall continue to be in force and should not
be amended or altered except in exceptional
circumstances by the appropriate body. This alone can
B add some certainty to the application of these provisions
and to the expectations of the government employees,
who have a legitimate expectation of allotment of
government accommodation as part of their perks. It is
also directed that the purpose of Rule 8 of the Allotment
c Rules is not to allow discretionary allotment but is to
provide overall powers of coordination and control to the
Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh. When the words 'for the
purposes of allotment to any class or category of eligible
government servant' appearing in Rule 8 are examined,
0 these have to necessarily be construed to mean the
allotment made in terms of the Allotment Rules. Adding
or withdrawing. houses to the general pool is a power
vested in the authority under Rule 8, but allotments still
are to be made in accordance with the substantive rules
E enabling the authorities to make regular allotments.
[paras 26-27} [918-B-E]
3.4. Rule 9 of the Allotment Rules requires the
authorities to invite applications for allotment of
accommodation and also provides the manner in vyhich
F the allotment of houses is to be made including showing
the seniority of the applicants category-wise. There is no
provision requiring invitation of objections. Once there is
no rule, it will not serve any fruitful purpose to invite
objections to each allotment apart from unnecessarily
G delaying allotments and rendering the working of the
Rules more complex and difficult. Further, Rule 9(5) of the
Allotment Rules is a complete safeguard in regard to
proper maintenance of the seniority list of the applicants.
Thus, the directions issued by the Single Judge in that
H behalf is set aside. However, it is directed that the final
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 897
AND ORS.
list of allotments made by the House Allotment Committee
A
should be placed on the website of the Government, as
all interested persons would be entitled to know whether
they have been allotted the accommodation or not. [para
28] [918-G-H; 919-A-B]
3.5. The issue regarding the allotment of two houses
B
to a single officer and/or to his family, one in Chandigarh
and one in some other part of the same State; and the
second w;;is regarding the period of retention of the
allotted house after the employee is retired, promoted,
C
transferred or is sent on deputation are of serious
concern. There is no rule on the records providing that
an officer who is posted outside Chandigarh/Panchkula/
Mohali and whose spouse is not entitled to any
Government accommodation of any category can be'
provided with two houses, one at the District/Division
D
level to which he/she is transferred and another at
Chandigarh and its adjourning areas. In absence of any
such specific rule, it is directed that the State shall not
allot two different houses to one government servant. In
terms of Rule 11 (1 )(b) of the Allotment Rules, such
allotment can be made in some circumstances but every
effort should· be made to ensure that such situations arise
only in exceptional circumstances. Even under the rules
E
of transfer of the Government servant, a married couple,
both of whom are government servants are normally
F
posted at the same place. Be that as it may, it will be in
the interest of all concerned that Rule 11 (1 )(b) is invoked
sparingly and only by the authorities concerned, upon the
recommendation of the House Allotment Committee.
[para 29] (919-C·H]
G
4.1. The issue with regard to the retention of
government accommodation is controlled by Rule 13 of
the Allotment Rules. The table under clause 2 of the said
Rule provides different periods of retention in different
H
898
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
situations. Rule 13, sub-rule 5 further carves out an
exception, allowing the period of retention to be extended
beyond the period stated in the table under Rule 13(2) of
the Allotment Rules on payment of higher licence fee.
There is no reason why a government servant should be
B
c
D
E
F
permitted to retain the accommodation beyond 4 to 6
months, which period is permissible under the
substantive rules. A govern'ment servant knows in
advance the period within which he has to vacate the
accommodation allotted to him as part of his employment
and so he has to surrender the house in question within
the scheduled time. What exceptional cases are
contemplated under Rule 13(5) of the Allotment Rules is
nowhere indicated. No guidelines are provided and it is
only for the authcrities concerned to decide whether the
case falls in that category or not. There are no compelling
circumstances for permitting discretion to the authorities
under Rule 13(5) of the Allotment Rules. Rules 13(1) and
13(2) are comprehensive, specific and provide more than
reasonable time for a government servant to vacate the
accommodation allotted to him/her. The Court cannot
lose sight of the fact that a large number of employees
under different categories are awaiting their allotments
and are being deprived of this benefit for long periods
because of excessive invocation of such discretionary
powers. The provision is unguided and arbitrary and
cannot stand the scrutiny of law. More so, the licence fee
indicated is obviously minimal in comparison to th~
market rent for the said premises. It is a matter which a
Court can safely take judicial notice of. Compelled by
these circumstances, Rule 13(5) is not sustainable and
G the authorities are directed not to take recourse to the
said provision under any circumstance. No case of
retention of government accommodation beyond the
periods specified in the table to Rule 13(2) of the
H
Allotment Rules shall be entertained by any authority
under the Allotment Rules. The directions are passed
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 899
AND ORS.
being conscious of the fact that the Allotment Rules are
A
in place and that the authorities are acting fairly and
judiciously. The directions issued by this Court are
primarily explanatory and are intended to narrow the
scope of discretion exercisable by the concerned
authorities. It is a settled canon of Administrative
B
Jurisprudence that wider the power conferred, more
onerous is the responsibility to ensure that such power
is not exercised in excess of what is required or relevant
for the case and the decision. [paras 30-33] [920-A-H; 921A-C]
c
4.2. The authorities are expected to be consistent in
their decisions and bring certainty to the Allotment Rules.
This can only be done by making fair, judicious and
reasoned decisions on the one hand and refraining from
amending the Allot~ent Rules except in exceptional .and D
extraordinary circumstances on the other. The Doctrine
of Certainty can appropriately be applied to legislative
powers as it is applicable to judicial pronouncements ..
This would not mean that the power of the Legislature to
amend rules is restricted by judicial pronouncements. But E
it is impressed upon the Legislature that the rules of the
present kind should not be amended so frequently that
no established practice or settled impression may be
formed in the minds of the employees. Where the
employer has limited resources, there the employee has
F
a legitimate expectation of being dealt with fairly in
relation to allotment to such government accommodation.
Consequently, reverting to the case of the appellant, she
is admittedly occupying an earmarked house. An order
of eviction and damages has been passed against her G
and she has taken recourse to an appropriate remedy or
against which she has already taken an appropriate
remedy. The matter in that behalf is still pending final
hearing before the Single Judge. The parties are left to
raise all their contentions before the Single Judge, who H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A shall decide the matter in accordance with law. However,
with regard to the interim order passed by the High Court,
the State is directed to allot to her an alternative
accommodation under the category which she is entitled
to, in pursuance of her appointment as State Information
B Commissioner, within fifteen days from today and she
shall be liable to vacate the accommodation presently in
her occupation within two weeks thereafter. In the event
the Government is unable to allot her an alternative
accommodation of her category for the reason of none availability of such accommodation, she should be
provided with appropriate accommodation, including
private accommodation of her status, within the same
period. [para 34] [921-D-H; 922-A-C]
D
E
F
G
Case Law Reference:
(2000) 8 sec 262
relied on
Para 10
1979 (3) SCR 1014
relied on
Para 12
(2001) 1 SCR 203
referred to
Para 14
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 358 referred to
Para 14
2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 619 referred to
Para 14
2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 398 referred to
Para 14
1991 (2) Suppl. SCR 322 referred to
Para 14
(2002) 4 sec 578
Followed
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7524 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.5.2011 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. No. 752 of
2011 (0 & M) in C.W.P. No. 20252 of 2008.
D.P. Singh, Praveen Kumar Aggarwal, Ashok K. Mahajan
H for the Appellant.
ASHA SHARMA v. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION 901
AND ORS.
T.S. Doabia, M.S. Doabia, Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the A
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2.