Government Accommodation: The Lure Of Public Service

Can’t keep occupying government bungalow indefinitely,” said the Supreme Court on July 22, while dismissing a former Bihar MLA Avinash Kumar Singh’s plea against Rs 21 lakh penal rent for staying in an upscale bungalow in Patna for two years from April 2014 to May 2016 after resigning as a legislator. He had the temerity to term the demand as “illegal” and the sum as “huge”. And said he was entitled to a government accommodation after being nominated to the State Legislature Research and Training Bureau. For good measure, he cited the 2009 notification to buttress his claim that he was entitled to all the perks an MLA was entitled to. The court told him the first thing he ought to have done was to vacate the bungalow and not squat on it in anticipation of what is known as post-retirement sinecure. Earlier, the Patna High Court had expressed similar sentiments that the 2009 notification did not entitle him to continue in the accommodation earmarked for the legislators, and it nowhere provided that a former MLA could retain the same quarters. A stinging rap on the knuckles indeed. Equally stinging were the Supreme Court verdicts in two earlier cases, the Lok Prahari case and the SD Bandi case, which ruled that public figures cannot unauthorisedly use their clout.

But then, unfortunately, some of the SC judges have not practiced what the SC has preached. The Supreme Court administration has asked the Union Ministry of Urban Development to initiate the process of getting the official residence of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) vacated, which is at present occupied by former CJI DY Chandrachud. In a letter written July 1, the top court administration has urged the ministry to start the procedure so that the bungalow can be reverted to the Supreme Court’s housing pool (https://theprint.in/judiciary/asked-to-vacate-govt-bungalow-at-scs-request-ex-cji-chandrachud-says-need-10-15-days-to-relocate/2681502/ ). Though Chandrachud has extenuating circumstances, namely, the comorbidities, as he says, of his daughters, in the eyes of the public the image is one of feet dragging or dilly-dallying.

This is not the first time a former judge of the Supreme Court has retained the possession of an official accommodation beyond the end of the term. In the past, there have been judges, including former CJIs N.V. Ramana, and U.U. Lalit, as well as Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hima Kohli, and Arun Mishra, who lived in official accommodation months after demitting office. However, it is subject to the serving CJI’s discretion. Justice Mishra had lived in a bungalow that was part of the Supreme Court housing pool while he served as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) chairman for five years. This was even as he was not entitled to a Type-VIII bungalow, the category earmarked for only serving Supreme Court judges (the Print supra).

The bungalow at 6, Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi, was the official residence of Babu Jagjivan Ram till he died in 1986. His family vacated it in 2002 after the death of his wife, Indrani Devi. Now it is the memorial to the Dalit leader. The widow of the then railway minister, LN Mishra, who died in the Samastipur blast in 1975, too, dug herself in for a very long time in the bungalow allotted to her husband.

Feudalism still reigns in India. Many artists who are typically allotted government accommodations for three years protest with a sense of injured innocence on being asked to vacate after the term is over. One of the valuable benefits of government employment that brought South Indians in droves to New Delhi in the 1950s was government accommodation. That, of course, is legitimate, as paying exorbitant rent from one’s own pocket always pinches. The large houses allotted to civil servants of the IAS genre massaged their pardonable egos besides enabling them to live in splendour.

In the private sector, honchos insist on sprawling bungalows with a swimming pool thrown in for good measure. Honchos of foreign pedigree expect a jacuzzi, gym, and scented gardens. It is quite common for cash-rich companies to enter into a win-win deal with plush star hotels for accommodating such fuzzy honchos. Long-term agreements with hotels ensure heavily discounted tariffs, and for hotel occupancy, the key parameter for profitability. Such hotels meet the expectations of the honchos. For the companies there is a huge cost saving in terms of rents paid for bungalows. While such pampering is scandalous, one can wink at it, saying it is not taxpayers’ money that is played ducks and drakes with, which is what mantris and MLAs are doing with government accommodation. There is an indignant view that if misuse of taxpayers’ money is condemnable, misuse of shareholders’ funds is no less condemnable. But then the master of good times, Vijay Mallya, justified his lavish lifestyle at the shareholders’ expense as a reward for taking care of their wealth. Touche!

In the US, apart from the president, who gets to live in the White House, and the vice-president, who gets to live in the United States Naval Observatory, all others, including the secretary of state, find their own accommodation, whether out of the house rent allowance they get or otherwise. This seems to be the best way of providing accommodation to public servants, as there is no chance of treating the government accommodation as lifelong private property, what with the house rent allowance coming to an end on retirement or resignation or completion of the term. In fact, the Indian government as well as state governments should provide accommodation only to civil servants, with MPs and MLAs being paid house rent allowance. It is easier to evict civil servants than the politically powerful politicians.

There is often talk of the government monetising its assets so as to be able to mortgage them. A beginning can be made by starting with Lutyens’s Delhi, home to the sprawling bungalows of politicians. Their sale to private builders would enrich the coffers of the government like no privatisation or disinvestment has done in the past.

S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.