Allotment of residential flats to employees in lieu of staff quarters creates no vested right to ownership or parity.

The Appellant, an association representing Group-C & D employees of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), challenged an order dated 13.04.2026, which dismissed their Writ Petition.

In 2002, the members were allotted residential flats in Sector-23, Dwarka, as an interim arrangement due to a shortage of regular staff quarters.

The Appellant contended these were ordinary residential units—not service quarters—evidenced by the DDA selling identical units to the general public and other organizations like the All India Naval Draughtsmen Association (AINDA).

The Appellant sought a direction for DDA to allot these flats to the occupying employees at current market rates or formulate a policy for such allotment.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the employees had no vested right to ownership and that the matter fell within the domain of policy.

1. Whether the members of the Appellant association have a vested legal right or lien to claim ownership/allotment of flats occupied by them as temporary staff accommodation.

2. Whether the Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a land-owning agency to formulate a policy for the sale of its housing stock to specific occupants.

3. Whether the denial of allotment constitutes hostile discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by comparing the Appellant's case with the institutional allotment made to AINDA.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not empower the Judiciary to interfere with or dictate "policy decisions," which remain the exclusive prerogative of the executive or statutory bodies like the DDA.

The principle of Article 14 regarding reasonable classification, noting that "parity" can only be claimed when parties are "similarly situated"; institutional allotments to Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) under specific board resolutions constitute a distinct category from individual employee accommodations.

Temporary occupation of premises in the capacity of an employee does not create a proprietary interest or a right to seek transfer of ownership.

The Court reasoned that the Subject Flats were clearly allotted "in lieu of staff quarters" as an interim measure, and the DDA's recent notices correctly categorized them as such.

Since the members have either retired or are nearing retirement, their legal right to occupy the premises has ceased, and they possess no legal right to demand the conversion of a license into ownership.

Regarding the claim of "hostile discrimination," the Court found the comparison with AINDA misplaced: the AINDA allotment was a result of a 1996 policy resolution specifically earmarking flats for PSUs/institutional allotments, whereas the Appellant's members occupied the flats as individual service perks.

The Court emphasized that as the owner of the land and housing stock, the DDA is free to deal with its property as it deems fit, and the Judiciary cannot compel the creation of a sale policy where none exists.

Neither the length of stay (over 23 years) nor the willingness to pay market rates creates a "special equity" or legal entitlement.

The Court held that the members have no vested right to continue occupation post-retirement or seek parity with institutional allotments.

On humanitarian grounds, the Court directed that the members be granted two months to vacate the premises upon request.

The Appeal and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.