Rights panel orders TN Govt to allot flat to employee

CHENNAI, JULY 31: The State Human Rights Commission has directed the Housing and Urban Development Secretary to allot a flat on rent to a...

CHENNAI, JULY 31: The State Human Rights Commission has directed the Housing and Urban Development Secretary to allot a flat on rent to an employee, commensurate with his occupation, service and pay.

Member K Swamidurai who held an inquiry into the denial of a suitable Housing Board flat to N Uma Murugan, a section officer in the Public Department, said he had been treated in an unjust, unfair and unconscionable manner. The Commission ordered that a Higher Income Group (HIG) flat be made available on rent to the employee within six weeks of the order. “Right to life includes right of a human being to hold property for enjoying his life. A person occupying the post of section officer (upgraded) cannot be asked to occupy a flat on rent meant for low-paid and last-grade government servants,” the order said.

Uma Murugan had entered government service as assistant in Public Department in 1981 and had applied for a TN Housing Board flat on rent in the same year. He had been renewing the registration for 17years. In the meantime, he was promoted as assistant section officer and as section officer.While he was expecting allotment of flat commensurate with his official status, in June 1997 the Housing and Urban Development Department informed him that he was only eligible for a flat intended for last-grade government servants. A one-room flat meant for such government servants was allotted in Peters Colony. The Department also began to recover portions of his salary towards rent. The HUD Secretary wrote letters in November and December 1998 that the employee can apply afresh for allotment of suitable Housing Board flat and that the application will be considered in due time.

A chagrined and hurt Uma Murugan moved the State Human Rights Commission seeking vindication of his rights and appropriate direction. In its enquiry, the Commission said that despite the relevant documents forwarded by it to the HUD, it had received no reply. Although it was true that the employee was an assistant at the time ofapplication, he had risen in position subsequently. Moreover, he had renewed his application for a flat for 17 years. Yet the employee had been dumped with a flat he did not want and what’s more asked to pay for it.