Govt Employees Can't Claim Right To Purchase Official Quarters Allotted During Service: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has held that government employees cannot claim a right or insist that the official quarters allotted to them during service should be sold to them post retirement, adding that unauthorized occupation of Government quarters amounts to unlawful deprivation of scarce public resources. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 193]

In doing so the court dismissed an appeal preferred by the President of an association challenging a trial court order which rejected his suit to continue residing in government quarters along with a prayer to purchase the quarters. 

Justice JC Doshi observed that the crux of appellant-plaintiff's suit is that Villa "C" Colony is occupied by Class-IV employees of State Government, who belong to backward and Schedule Caste and are entitled to continue their possession till they are the allottees under the Government allotment letter and their possession is protected till they are in service.

With respect to the contention that the state should sell its quarters to the appellant, the court referred to decision in N.K. Parmar v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1992) where in a similar case it was held Government employees cannot have any legal or equitable right to insist that the quarters or blocks which were allotted to them during their service tenure should be sold to them.

"In this principal pleading, another sort of pleading was made that the State Government by Resolution No.1230 dated 04.06.1981 decided to sell the Government quarters to its employees, more particularly who belong to the backward class or Schedule Caste, at Rs.15,000/-...Therefore, the contention by the plaintiff Mr. Rajnikant Solanki that the State Government should sell the Government quarters to them, which were allotted for residential purpose during their service tenure, is difficult to accept and such awful and appalling contention is accordingly repelled," the court said. 

On continuance of possession of the appellant the court observed:

"The Government employee as of right cannot claim to continue in a Government premises post superannuation. Terms and conditions are clear as crystal. Employee whom Government quarters are allotted have no vested right or any actionable claim. Government employee are bound to vacate quarter as and when ordered by the competent officer; inasmuch as their occupation is governed by Bombay Civil Service Rules. In this factual position, suit filed for seeking relief and specific relief under the Specific Relief Act, was not maintainable since inception". 

The appellant, President of Villa "C" Colony Employees Association, said that the members were residing in residential quarters constructed for Class-IV employees. It was stated that the members belongs to the Valmiki community, are working in various Departments and are living in the property along with their family.  

It is further stated that the allotment was given on the condition that they can continue to occupy the residential premises till they are in service.

The appellants alleged that the respondents are pressuring them to vacate the property. They claimed that the residential quarters be sold to the appellant. 

The respondents contended that the appellant-plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit. It was contended that the entire colony is required for the larger public purpose of redevelopment and has been transferred to the Civil Hospital for the construction of hostel, housing facility for PG, non-teaching and medical employees. Considering the public interest, possession of the property, which otherwise belongs to the State Government, cannot be claimed as a right by the appellants. The trial court dismissed the suit against which appellants approached the high court. 

The high court said that the appellant filed the suit in his individual capacity and claimed relief without joining the persons who are the beneficiaries, and without examining them.

"Plaintiff, being a one-man army, has filed and fought the suit for nearly Fourteen years and although he is not a Government employee nor an allottee of the Government quarter, resisted eviction from Government quarter from all these years," the court said. 

The court noted that in the trial, appellant admitted that he doesn't know how many trustees were there in the appellant-plaintiff's trust when he had filed the suit; on second thought he said  that as of now, 11 to 15 trustees are forming the part of the trust. He further admitted that at the time when he  filed the suit, 21 persons were with him. The court however noted that none of them were made parties to the suit, had not signed the suit, and none of them had entered into the witness box. 

He had  further admitted that only 5 persons signed the Resolution by which appellant-plaintiff claimed that he was authorized to file the suit. 

Finding the suit to be "wholly frivolous", the court held that the appellant had no locus-standi or any legally enforceable right to seek protection of either his possession or possessions of 21 retired employees over the Government quarter or to ask for relief of directing Government to sell the Government quarters to the retired Government employees. It said:

"It is noticeable that a completely groundless person is allowed to continue to occupy the suit premises since 2014, inasmuch as the possession of the Government quarter also occupied since 2014, despite Government Class-IV employees  have retired, which has outweighed the public purpose of development and redevelopment for the Civil Hospital, this kind of the attempt in an already choked system is to be deprecated and accordingly, is deprecated.

...unauthorized occupation of Government quarters is not a mere breach of the terms of allotment; it constitutes an unlawful deprivation of a scarce public resource held by the State in trust for eligible public servants. Once the authority to occupy the premises comes to an end, continuance in possession is plainly unauthorized and cannot be countenanced on equitable or sympathetic considerations...This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that unauthorized occupation of Government quarters has assumed the character of a public menace...".

The court dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.10,000.

Case title: VILLA C COLONY KARMACHARI ASSOCIATIONS PRESIDENT RAJNIKANT KAMALJIT SOLANKI v/s  EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT & ORS

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2424 of 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 193