Clash of Schemes: Court Denies Extension of Benefits for Retired Kashmiri Migrants.


06 December 2024 RTI – Right to Information >> Miscellaneous   |   Unpaid salary/bonus/gratuity >> Workplace/ Professional Related  

The Supreme Court addressed a case of Tej Kishen & Others v/s UOI & Others concerning the rights of Kashmiri migrants who sought housing facilities under two separate schemes formulated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The petitioners, who are permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir and registered as "Kashmiri Migrants" in Delhi, challenged the terms of the second scheme, alleging that its conditions were overly burdensome. They sought to have the terms of payment of the second scheme amended to align with those of the first, which they argued would make the housing more accessible to them.

Background of the Housing Schemes:

The DDA introduced two housing schemes specifically targeting Kashmiri migrants, each catering to different sets of beneficiaries. The first, called the "Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants," was designed for families who had migrated from Kashmir and were residing in refugee camps in Delhi. This scheme allowed applicants to apply for flats on a "hire purchase" basis with a provision for repayment over 180 months, making it more accessible to economically disadvantaged families.

 

 

The second scheme, titled "Special Housing Registration Scheme for Retired/Retiring Jammu & Kashmir Migrants," was targeted at Central Government employees from Jammu & Kashmir who had retired or were about to retire. The scheme offered 100 flats in Dwarka, with the option for retiring employees to pay on a hire purchase basis, but only up to the date of their superannuation. Retired employees, however, could only make a "cash down" payment for the flats. This scheme had different eligibility criteria and payment terms from the first, reflecting the differing needs and financial conditions of its target demographic.

Petitioners’ Claims:

The petitioners, who had retired as Central Government employees, argued that the second scheme’s payment terms were excessively stringent, especially for retirees who no longer had access to regular income. They claimed that the scheme's conditions, including the cash down requirement for retired employees, made it difficult for them to avail of the housing benefits. They further sought to amend the payment terms to mirror those of the first scheme, which allowed a longer repayment period and more flexibility.

After addressing their concerns with the DDA and facing eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act due to their continued occupation of government accommodation, the petitioners filed a writ petition. They requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus to the DDA, compelling them to allow repayment through 240 equal monthly installments, as provided in the first scheme.

Key Legal Considerations:

Upon reviewing the case, the court observed a critical distinction between the two schemes. The first scheme was a rehabilitation initiative specifically aimed at Kashmiri migrants who had faced displacement due to conflict, while the second scheme was a housing provision designed exclusively for retired or retiring Central Government employees from Jammu & Kashmir.

The court pointed out that the second scheme was not meant as a rehabilitation measure, but rather as a housing facility for government employees with relatively better financial standing compared to the migrants targeted in the first scheme. Therefore, it was not appropriate to equate the two schemes in terms of payment terms or eligibility criteria. Additionally, the court found that the petitioners had not applied for allotment under the second scheme during the designated application window, thus rendering their claims inadmissible at such a late stage.

Court's Decision:

The court also highlighted that the second scheme had been closed after receiving only 12 applications, and all applicants had been allotted flats. Since the scheme had been closed and no further applications were being entertained, the petitioners’ request for changes to the scheme’s payment structure was deemed untimely. The petitioners had also failed to establish that they had applied for the flats under the second scheme, as claimed in their petition. Moreover, they had not provided any compelling justification for why the payment terms of the first scheme should be extended to the second.

In light of these factors, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The court further emphasized that judicial review could not be used to interfere with a policy decision, especially when there was a clear distinction between the two schemes and the criteria they sought to fulfill.

Conclusion:

The case highlights important issues concerning the scope and application of housing schemes for displaced and retired individuals, specifically in the context of Jammu & Kashmir migrants. The court's decision reiterates the principle that judicial review cannot be used to alter policy decisions unless they are found to be unconstitutional or irrational. The dismissal of the petition also underscores the importance of adhering to established application processes and timelines when seeking benefits under government schemes.

In this case, the petitioners' failure to follow the application procedure and their subsequent delay in seeking amendments to the second scheme led to the rejection of their claims. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for clarity and timely action when engaging with government policies and housing schemes.


Right to Information Act, 2005  

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971