& Anr Vs. U.T. Admn., Chandigarh & Ors  INSC 364 (20 September 1993)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Singh N.P. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 401
petitioners are admittedly daughters-in-law of the retired employees. The U.T.,
Chandigarh had introduced the scheme for
allotment of out of turn accommodation to the wife/husband, son, unmarried
daughter of the retired employees to remain in occupation of the allotted
quarters on paying fixed rentals. Therein, initially, daughter-in- law was also
included but later she was deleted from the category of the persons entitled to
the out of turn allotment. It was challenged in the High Court. In the impugned
judgment in C.W. No. 10703 of 1990, dated 27-7- 1993, the High Court held that
the deletion of daughter-in- law from the scheme is well justified. The
correctness thereof is now assailed in these special leave petitions.
D.V. Sehgal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that when
son, unmarried daughter and wife/husband are treated as eligible for out of
turn allotment, daughter-in-law, who became part of the house of
father-in-law/mother-in-law, is also entitled to the parity of the treatment.
We find no force in the contention. The government quarters are to be allotted
on the basis of seniority and deviation should be on the basis of valid and
discernible differentiation. Otherwise, it is open to challenge on the ground
of invidious + From the Judgment and Order dated 27-7-1993 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos. 12518 of 1992, 13836 of 1991,
12989 of 1992, 13837 of 1991, 4587 of 1992 and 10703 of 1990 402
discrimination. Policy decision of the administration is that daughter-in-law
is not entitled to parity of treatment.
these circumstances, we find no justifiable reason warranting interference as
we cannot sit over the policy and we find no merit in the contention. The
special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.