Jammu & Kashmir High Court denies relief to Kashmiri Pandits seeking to retain government flats after retirement

The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh recently ordered three Kashmiri Pandits who retired as employees of State Bank of India (SBI) to vacate flats allotted to them by the Bank, saying they do not have any indefeasible right to government accommodation [Indar Krishan Raina v. Union of India]..Justice Sindhu Sharma was hearing petitions filed by the retired Chief Manager, Manager and Deputy Manager of SBI, all challenging the decision of the bank authorities to deduct heavy amounts from their pension accounts towards rental charges of the flats allotted to them during their employment. .The petitioners had migrated to Jammu after 1990, when thousands of Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave the Valley. Not having any alternate accommodation, they claimed that they had the right to continue to reside in the said flats.The judge, however, noted from the record,"The petitioners were not allotted the accommodation on the basis of their being migrants from the Valley rather the accommodation was allotted to them by virtue of their being serving employees of the Bank on nominal license fee.".The petitioners cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in JL Koul case, wherein the top court had allowed state government employees to retain the accommodation allotted to them, as they weren't able to occupy their own houses in the Valley. However, the Bench held,"The judgment in J L Koul's case isn't applicable on the present case as the appellants in that case were permitted to retain their respective accommodation at Jammu for safety reasons. The petitioners' contention is not that they have no other residential accommodation rather they submit that they have no accommodation in Jammu and, therefore, the respondents are under obligation to allow them to occupy the residential accommodation as per the principle adopted by the State Government...".The Bench further noted from the submissions and the material on record that the former Chief Manager and Manager had already purchased flats in Delhi and also in Mohali, while the Deputy Manager had applied for a housing loan to purchase a new house."The petitioners are, thus, possessing the residential accommodation as per their choice in Delhi and Mohali and still retained the official accommodation allotted to them at nominal charges denying the same to those other serving employees, which is required by them to facilitate in discharge of their duties. The petitioners, thus, do not hold any indefeasible right for allotment of Government accommodation. The Government accommodation is meant for serving officer and not for the retirees," the Court added.Referring to the top court's decision in a case, Justice Sharma said that the petitioners cannot be said to be enforcing their right to shelter, since they already are having alternate accommodation. "This apart, the petitioners have concealed all these material facts from this Court while filing the writ petition. They have not approached this Court with clean hands and they had already availed housing loan and are owners of flats/residential accommodations at Delhi and Mohali, thus their petitions fail," the judge said.The Bench thus dismissed their petitions, with a direction to vacate the premises within 30 days..Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi along with Advocate Navyug Sethi appeared for the petitioners. The respondents were represented by Advocate Sumeet Bhatia. .[Read Order]