Supreme Court: Kashmiri Migrants can’t hold Govt houses after Retirement

Swarna Shukla-

Published On: October 12, 2021 at 08:45 IST

The Apex Court held that a Government employee who is a Kashmiri Migrant, cannot have Government accommodation after retirement for a period exceeding three years.

Furthermore, the Court stated that there cannot be any justification based on economic or social criteria to allow them to stay in Government houses for an indefinitely long period.

The Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice A S Bopanna stated, “The office of Memorandum allowing the retired Government employees who are Kashmiri Migrants to retain Government houses for an indefinitely long time is Unconstitutional for being arbitrary and discriminatory.”

The Court believed that Government accommodation is meant for serving Officers, not as a resource to stay for a lifetime.

In August 2021, the Bench Observed that the Right to Shelter does not mean the Right to Government accommodation and set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court Order that allowed a retired Intelligence Bureau Officer to hold Government accommodation.

Whilst setting aside the High Court Order, the Top Court granted time to Onkar Nath Dhar, an Intelligence Bureau Officer and a Kashmiri Migrant, to hand over the vacant physical possession on or before 31st October 2021.

After the retirement, the IB Officer requested the Government to allow him to retain the house allotted to him on a nominal license fee, till the time when the situation becomes normal in Jammu and Kashmir, and the Government makes  it possible for him to go. However, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act,1971 were initiated against him.

The retired IB Officer challenged the proceedings before the Faridabad District Court which was rejected and later on in Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the High Court’s Order was later challenged by the Centre in the Top Court.

Dhar relied on the Right to Shelter, which is a Fundamental Right under Article 21. Moreover, the Top Court noted that he was an IB Officer and has drawn his salary and availed of alternatives. 

Also Read: SC denies Practice of Deferred Filing of Review Petition post-Judge Retirement

Former Judge’s plea against compulsory retirement dismissed by Orissa High Court

Related Post