Hemant Gupta, J.@mdashThe petitioners are the civilians working with the different branches of the Army Establishment at Ferozepur. The
petitioners were allotted Government Married Accommodation in Ferozepur Cantonment for a period of 6 months on temporary basis on different
dates from 2008 to 2011. The allotment was with a further condition that quarter will be vacated on demand and no representation would be
entertained. It was in April 2013 an order was issued to all the petitioners to vacate the Government Married Accommodation. Such notice was
challenged by the petitioners by way of an original application u/s 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short ''the Tribunal''). Such notice was challenged that as per the policy of Government of India, the
petitioners were entitled to retain the Government Accommodation allotted to them at Ferozepur and that since their children are studying in school
and their families are residing at Ferozepur, they should be allowed to retain such accommodation. In the written reply, it was pointed out that the
petitioners were allotted Government Married Accommodation at Ferozepur Cantonment from the Defence Pool which had been constructed on
the basis of authorized strength of Army Officers as per Key Location Plan of the station vide Station Headquarters Ferozepur Cantonment. These
quarters are meant for the Armed Forces personnel and not for civilians. Since some of these quarters were lying vacant, in order to obtain
optimum benefit of the vacant quarters, the petitioners were offered allotment notwithstanding the fact that they were not eligible for this type of
accommodation. It is categorically asserted that petitioners were not eligible for Government Married Accommodation meant for Armed Forces
personnel at Ferozepur at the cost of eligible Army personnel.
2. After considering the respective contentions, on the basis of the offer of the respondents that the petitioners would be permitted to retain the
accommodation allotted to them till 31.03.2014, the learned Tribunal did not find any merit in the original application and dismissed the same with
the condition that the petitioners shall be allowed to retain the accommodation till 31.03.2014. It is said order which is subject matter of challenge
in the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the requirement of the Armed Forces personnel can easily be met from the
accommodation, the details of which are available in Annexure P-9. It is also pointed out that many other civilians are occupying such
accommodation. Therefore, the action of the respondents in directing the petitioners to vacate the premises is discriminatory and arbitrary.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the present writ petition. It is not disputed that the accommodation
allotted to them is meant for personnel of the Armed Forces. The petitioners were allotted such accommodation on temporary basis with a view to
utilize vacant quarters. Even if some of the quarters are vacant, as per Annexure P-9, which is the list of quarters under repair, it will not confer any
enforceable right in the petitioners to continue in the accommodation meant for personnel of the Armed Forces. It has been noticed that the
accommodation is meant for Captains/Majors but the petitioners who are the civilian employees working in the Allied Departments of the Armed
Forces, cannot retain the premises at the cost of personnel for whom such flats are meant. Even if some of the civilians are permitted to occupy the
premises, that will not lead to any enforceable right to continue with the occupation of the accommodation meant for the Armed Forces. The
petitioners are the licensees and were allotted quarter for limited time. No right of them is violated, if the quarters are sought to be vacated for the
use of personnel for whom such quarters are meant. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal, which may warrant interference
in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.