PIL on illegal occupation of govt accommodation: HC seeks Centre's stand

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

Gavel, law,
Press Trust of India New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Jul 29 2020 | 2:03 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 theformer 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.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Delhi High Courtgovernment of IndiaPIL

First Published: Jul 29 2020 | 1:40 PM IST

Next Story