AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img


Prem Kumari & Anr Vs. U.T. Admn., Chandigarh & Ors [1993] INSC 364 (20 September 1993)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Singh N.P. (J)

CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (2) 401

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. The 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.

2. Shri 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.

Under 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.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys