Eligibility under the housing resolution depends on occupancy on the cutoff date, not continued possession thereafter.

The petitioner’s late husband, a police employee, was allotted Room No. 74 in B.D.D. Chawl No. 9 as service quarters on 1 January 1978. Although the Government Resolution dated 11 October 1994 extended tenancy benefits to government employees residing in B.D.D. Chawls, the benefit was not extended to police personnel. After his retirement on 31 May 2009, the petitioner’s husband was asked to vacate the premises. He challenged the denial of tenancy rights in Writ Petition No. 876 of 2011, which was dismissed on 11 September 2015, and he vacated the premises on 31 October 2015.

The State subsequently issued the Government Resolution dated 18 August 2021, providing ownership-based allotment of approximately 500 sq. ft. premises in redeveloped B.D.D. Chawls to police personnel—serving, retired, or deceased—who had resided in B.D.D. Chawls up to 1 January 2011, including legal heirs of deceased personnel.

The petitioner sought the benefit of this Resolution, but her claim was rejected on the ground that her husband had vacated the premises in 2015, before issuance of the 2021 Resolution, and that the room had been allotted to another employee. She consequently invoked Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the rejection.

Whether the petitioner’s late husband was eligible under the Government Resolution dated 18 August 2021 merely because he had been residing in the B.D.D. Chawl on 1 January 2011, despite having vacated the premises before the date of the Resolution?

Whether the authorities could read into the Government Resolution an additional requirement that the police personnel or legal heir must be occupying the premises on 18 August 2021?

Whether rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the premises had been vacated before issuance of the Resolution was irrational and discriminatory?

The Court exercised judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to test the legality of the administrative communication. It applied the Government Resolution dated 18 August 2021, which made police personnel—serving, retired, or deceased—and their legal heirs eligible for ownership-based allotment of a redeveloped B.D.D. Chawl premises if the personnel had been residing there up to 1 January 2011.

The Court held that an administrative authority cannot add conditions to an unambiguous Government Resolution or adopt an interpretation contrary to its text and purpose. Relying on Sisir Kumar Mohanty v. State of Orissa, (2002) 9 SCC 219, it reiterated that the effect of a resolution must be determined from the resolution itself, without impermissible additions, deletions, or external explanations.

The Court also applied the equality principle under Article 14, holding that similarly situated retired police personnel who occupied the premises on the specified cut-off date could not be arbitrarily differentiated based on whether they continued to occupy the premises on the later date of issuance of the Resolution.

The Court construed the 18 August 2021 Resolution according to its plain language and found that 1 January 2011 was the prescribed eligibility cut-off date; the Resolution did not require continued occupation on 18 August 2021.

Since the petitioner’s husband admittedly resided in the premises on 1 January 2011 and continued there until 2015, his subsequent vacation of the premises did not extinguish eligibility under the Resolution. The Court rejected the State’s argument that his occupation after retirement was only protected by the pendency of the earlier writ petition, observing that the Resolution contained no such disqualification.

It further reasoned that requiring a retired employee to remain in possession for nearly ten years after the cut-off date would perversely reward prolonged or unauthorised retention and discriminate against those who vacated earlier in compliance with applicable rules.

The authorities’ interpretation therefore introduced an impermissible additional condition and resulted in hostile discrimination against the petitioner.

It quashed and set aside the impugned communication dated 16 February 2022 and directed the respondents to forthwith allot the petitioner a suitable tenement in accordance with the Resolution.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.