File photo of Delhi High Court.
The PIL says that many officials have their own personal residence in the same city, yet they continue to retain the concessional government housing even after retirement.
- PTI
- Last Updated: July 29, 2020, 12:20 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has sought the Centre’s response on a PIL filed by a society against illegal occupation of government accommodation by retired public servants, particularly the former chairman of the Forward Market Commission.
A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice to the Ministry of Housing, represented by the central government’s standing counsel Ajay Digpaul, and the former chairman of the Forward Market Commission seeking their stand on the plea by July 31.
The order came after the petitioner society — Chennai Financial Markets and Accountability — filed an affidavit indicating its bonafide and stating that it has no personal grudge against the retired public servant as was directed by the court on the last date of hearing on July 8.
The bench had also directed the society to deposit Rs 35,000 in court within two weeks so that if its plea was unsuccessful, the amount can be given to the retired public servant who has been specifically named in the petition. The society, thereafter, deposited the amount.
The society has sought action against the illegal retention of government accommodation by retired officials beyond the permissible limit of six months.
It has contended that many such officials also have their own personal residence in the same city, yet they continue to retain the concessional government housing even after retirement.
The petition has also contended that alleged lack of action against these retired officials was causing huge loss to the public exchequer and has sought review of all concessional retention of accommodation allowed by the government.
It has sought eviction of all retired public servants who are retaining government accommodation despite having own houses in the same city and those who have stayed beyond the permissible limit of six months.
