Former chief of Border Security Force (BSF) and other Kashmiri
migrant government servants have been allowed by the Delhi High Court to
retain their official accommodation in the national capital even after
retirement in view of threat perception as well as the turbulent
situation in their home state.
A bench of acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw held the view that throwing out those people from the government residence, without providing alternate shelter, would amount to gross violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.
The court also said, the Centre would be free to frame a rehabilitation policy for such retired government employees, specifying the terms and conditions for providing them alternate residence, which may be in New Delhi or in the national capital region.
It dismissed an appeal filed by the Centre challenging the single judge order of November 30, 2010, allowing all those Kashmiri pundits, who got themselves transferred to Delhi due to insurgency in the state, to continue occupying the government residences here. “The facts cry out eloquently and vociferously that the respondents and their families, who are permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, did not leave their home state voluntarily. They were driven out of Srinagar valley. Their household goods were looted and the house was burnt by the terrorists,” the bench said.
Talking specifically about the case of former director-general of BSF P K Koul, who superannuated on July 31, 2002, the court noted that apart from one residence in Srinagar destroyed by militants, he did not own any other property anywhere in the country.
Koul and 23 others, mostly working in intelligence agencies, defence or para-military services, were handed down eviction order by Estate Officer under the under the Public Premises Act, 1971. All the aggrieved retired officials got relief after they filed a writ petition in the high court.
“The respondents (Koul and others) are thus refugees in their own country though legally they are not entitled to refugee status. In such a scenario, particularly qua these respondents (erstwhile Central Government employees), duty of the State to provide shelter with corresponding right of the respondents to claim that shelter cannot be disputed,” the bench said.
Additional Solicitor-General A S Chandhiok, appearing for the Centre, challenged the single judge order, and submitted that there was a marked distinction between right to shelter and right to occupy government accommodation.
He said that rehabilitation measures undertaken by the Central government for the affected Kashmiri migrants included a Prime Minister-announced package of Rs 1,600 crores. Calling it as trivialising the whole issue, the division bench said: “In a case like this, it becomes the duty of the state to take care of their residential needs by providing adequate shelter.”
A bench of acting Chief Justice A K Sikri and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw held the view that throwing out those people from the government residence, without providing alternate shelter, would amount to gross violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution.
The court also said, the Centre would be free to frame a rehabilitation policy for such retired government employees, specifying the terms and conditions for providing them alternate residence, which may be in New Delhi or in the national capital region.
It dismissed an appeal filed by the Centre challenging the single judge order of November 30, 2010, allowing all those Kashmiri pundits, who got themselves transferred to Delhi due to insurgency in the state, to continue occupying the government residences here. “The facts cry out eloquently and vociferously that the respondents and their families, who are permanent residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, did not leave their home state voluntarily. They were driven out of Srinagar valley. Their household goods were looted and the house was burnt by the terrorists,” the bench said.
Talking specifically about the case of former director-general of BSF P K Koul, who superannuated on July 31, 2002, the court noted that apart from one residence in Srinagar destroyed by militants, he did not own any other property anywhere in the country.
Koul and 23 others, mostly working in intelligence agencies, defence or para-military services, were handed down eviction order by Estate Officer under the under the Public Premises Act, 1971. All the aggrieved retired officials got relief after they filed a writ petition in the high court.
“The respondents (Koul and others) are thus refugees in their own country though legally they are not entitled to refugee status. In such a scenario, particularly qua these respondents (erstwhile Central Government employees), duty of the State to provide shelter with corresponding right of the respondents to claim that shelter cannot be disputed,” the bench said.
Additional Solicitor-General A S Chandhiok, appearing for the Centre, challenged the single judge order, and submitted that there was a marked distinction between right to shelter and right to occupy government accommodation.
He said that rehabilitation measures undertaken by the Central government for the affected Kashmiri migrants included a Prime Minister-announced package of Rs 1,600 crores. Calling it as trivialising the whole issue, the division bench said: “In a case like this, it becomes the duty of the state to take care of their residential needs by providing adequate shelter.”
Source Deccan Herald, June 11, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment