- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3308/2005* whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/ appellant herein was dismissed, as a result of which the appellant's plea for allotment of a quarter by the Heavy Engineering Corporation (H.E.C. for short) was rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner/appellant herein had tiled a writ petition before the learned Single Judge for quashing the order dated 7.4.2005, vide Annexure -13, whereby the respondent no. 5, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, had directed the appellant to vacate the quarters no. [B -III -502(T)], which was in his possession by virtue of an allotment order in his favour by the Postal Department and the appellant occupied the same on account of being an employee of the Postal Department as he was discharging duties as Postal Assistant. The quarters in question admittedly belong to the H.E.C. and the H.E.C. had floated a Scheme in the year 2000 which envisaged that the allotment will be made to eligible applicants on a long term basis of the quarters which were owned and possessed by the H.E.C. The Scheme laid down conditions of eligibility which have already been stated in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. A perusal of the Scheme indicates that the H.E.C. framed rules constituting various categories for the applicants who were entitled to allotment of residential premises/quarters for allotment on a long term basis. The first category includes the serving employees, ex - employees, dependents of deceased employees and dependents of deceased ex -employees of H. E.C; second category includes the serving employees, ex -employees, dependents of deceased employees and dependents of deceased ex -employees of H.E.C. for other notified quarters in order of preference and on seniority basis inter se seniority for ex -employees; the third category includes co -operative employees and contract labour engaged by contractors; fourth category includes Central and State Public Sector Undertakings, Registered Philanthropic /Charitable Institutions and the last category includes the individuals having authorized shops/land for shops allotted in H.E.C. township for surplus quarters by process of competitive bidding. The Scheme further laid down that the quarters still remaining surplus, would be allotted to others on the basis of competitive bidding.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner/appellant herein did not fall under any of the categories envisaged in the Scheme as he was neither a serving employee, nor an ex -employee, nor a dependent of deceased employee of H.E.C. He, however, claimed allotment in the category of surplus quarters which could be allotted in the event of its availability on the basis of competitive bidding. In the year 2000, when the Scheme was floated by the H.E.C., there were eight quarters which were available for competitive bidding for allotment on a long term basis, in which any one could participate in the competitive bidding. The petitioner/appellant herein had also applied for allotment under this category, but his name was not recommended by the Postal Department as N.O.C. was not issued to him. The appellant at the relevant time was insisting for allotment of the quarters on a long term basis in view of competitive bidding as it was in his occupation, but the Postal Department refused to grant N.O.C. in his favour for this quarters [B -III -502(T)] and thereafter the Scheme lapsed and a new Scheme came into effect on 1.11.2002, under which the respondent no. 6, Smt. Ghuna Dev, made an application for allotment of quarters as she was eligible for allotment of a quarter as a dependent of the deceased employee of the H.E.C.;