Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar vs U.T., Chandigarh And Ors. on 18 February, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR2008P&H137, (2008)151PLR93, AIR 2008 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 137, 2008 (6) AIR KAR R 900, 2008 HRR 2 58, (2008) 4 SERVLR 111, (2008) 2 SCT 335, (2008) 3 PUN LR 93
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, C.J.
1. C.M. No. 3038 of 2008 C.M. is allowed and counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 is taken on record.
C.W.P. No. 1613 of 2008
2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ or direction for setting aside Clause III(i) and other offending Clauses like Clause IV in the impugned scheme dated 14.01.2008 (Annexure P-1) in which all the dwelling units have been reserved only for U.T. Government employees etc. and not even one dwelling unit has been left out for general public.
3. Mr. Amar Vivek, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned scheme is ultra vires of the provisions of the Constitution. The respondents cannot reserve 100% dwelling units for U.T. Government employees alone. While referring to the eligibility as well as reservation criteria which is to the following effect:
III. Eligibility:
(i) The applicant should be a regular employee of Chandigarh Administration or its Board/Corporation or Punjab & Haryana High Court or on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration on the date of the opening of the scheme or should have retired in last three years from the date of opening of the scheme. IV. Reservation There shall be the following reservation:a) 121/2% in favour of applicants belonging to Schedules Castes (SC) employees.
b) 5% in favour of the other Backward Classes (OBC) employees.
c) 5% in favour of Ex-Servicemen employees.
he contended that the scheme envisages reservation only for the employees and no welfare of general public has been kept in mind, as such, the scheme is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. In this regard, he placed reliance upon Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University and Anr. . On the basis of Deepak Sibal's case, it was vehemently contended by Mr.Amar Vivek that Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation and the making out a class of employees working in the Chandigarh Administration for granting the benefit under the aforesaid scheme is not based on an intelligible differentia and has no rational nexus to the object to provide housing in Union Territory of Chandigarh. He has based this contention on the basis of observations made in Deepak Sibal's case in paragraph 14, which are to the following effect:
It is difficult to accept the contention that the Government employees or the employees of Semi- Government and other institutions, as mentioned in the impugned rule, stand on a different footing from the employees of private concerns, in so far as the question of admission to evening classes is concerned. It is true that the service conditions of employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. are different, and they may have greater security of service, but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes. The test is whether the employees of private establishments are equally in a disadvantageous position like the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. in attending morning classes. There can be no doubt and it is not disputed that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no difference between these two classes of employees in that regard. To exclude the employees of private establishments will not therefore, satisfy the test of intelligible differentia that distinguishes the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. grouped together from the employees of private establishments. It is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, in that case the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one.
4. In reply to the submission of Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sanjiv Sharma, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the housing scheme in dispute has been formulated for providing accommodation to its employees, is on account of the fact that the demand was raised before the Chandigarh Administration by the employees who are working in the Administration, as there are 5744 employees falling in Grades A,B,C and D who have no houses of their own at Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula.
5. He further contends that in view of the fact that most of these employees are either living in private accommodation or in the outskirts of the city, there was a pressure on the Government to float a special scheme for the employees as a class. It was also contended before us by Mr.Sanjiv Sharma that under the provisions contained in Regulation 25 of Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment Management & Sales of Tenements) Regulations, 1979, no reservation for serving employees was possible in schemes floated for the general public and in this background, by invoking the provisions contained in Section 71 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 (as extended to Chandigarh), the Chandigarh Administration directed the Chandigarh Housing Board to work out the modalities and criteria for allotment of dwelling units to its about 22,000 employees serving in U.T. It is also contended before us that as the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Deepak Sibal's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case there was only one law course in the evening batch and non-governmental employees were barred from taking admission therein. He has also contended that with regard to the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that with regard to the general public, the Chandigarh Housing Board have already floated 5 schemes during the last five years and 2 more are coming up in this year and 7,000 persons will be benefited from the general category.
6. We have gone through the facts of the case and gave careful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel for the parties.
7. The reliance placed by Mr.Amar Vivek on Deepak Sibal's case would not have any bearing to the facts of this case because in that case, a plea before the Supreme Court had been taken by the Punjab University that the object of starting evening classes was to provide education to bona fide employees who could not attend the morning classes on account of their employment and it was not open to the private employees as in the past the Department of Law found that various certificates by employees were found to be incorrect and obtained only with a view to get admission the evening classes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the classification holding that the possibility of production of bogus certificates and insecurity of their services are not, in our opinion, such circumstances as will justify the exclusion of the employees of private establishments from the evening classes.
8. Another reason which weighed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court that struck down the policy of the Punjab University was that in the counter affidavit, the University was silent as to why imparting of legal education to the employees of the Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. would be in public interest. The Supreme Court further posed a question that it was not understandable why Government/Semi- Government employees in general should be imparted legal education and what sort of public interest would be served by such legal education. It may be that certain sections of Government employees require legal education but, surely, Government employees in general do not require legal education. Therefore, that classification of the Government employees as a class eligible for admission in the evening law college was quashed by the Supreme Court.
9. Before us, the main object of the policy is to provide houses to the employees of not only of Chandigarh Administration, as has been stated in the prayer clause by the petitioner, but also the policy envisages the employees of the Chandigarh Administration, employees of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and employees on deputation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh which includes such a large number of employees of these Institutions. It is nobody's case that no scheme for general categories have ever been launched. Mr.Sanjiv Sharma has fairly stated that schemes after schemes in other categories where general public can participate have been floated and in such circumstances where the employees of Chandigarh Administration have been treated as a class one, cannot stated to be illegal or unconstitutional.
10. In our mind, the main objective of the policy is for providing shelter to those employees who are living in private accommodation or in far off places, adjoining towns of Mohali or Panchkula, therefore, the policy could not be challenged on the ground that it creates a class which is not permitted under the mandate of the Constitution.
11. We find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.