‘Builders made a pile off BMC land, sanitary workers remained homeless’

A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale noted that “sanitary workers remain amongst the most exploited, marginalised and vulnerable workforces”

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday came down heavily on the BMC for failing to provide ownership housing to sanitary workers for almost 18 years, observing that while its land pool had been severely depleted, its own sanitary workers remained deprived of homes.

‘Builders made a pile off BMC land, sanitary workers remained homeless’

“Large tracts of municipal lands have vanished… including those permitted to be encroached by slums and thereafter handed over to private developers to be developed as slum schemes, thereby conferring a bonanza of such municipal gifts to such encroachers and the other beneficiaries. On the other hand, the municipal corporation’s own sanitary workers are being deprived of housing for 18 years,” the court remarked.

A division bench of Justice G S Kulkarni and Justice Neela Gokhale noted that “sanitary workers remain amongst the most exploited, marginalised and vulnerable workforces” and could not be subjected to systemic neglect when it came to their entitlement under the avowed government policy to provide them with permanent housing.

The court noted that the state government’s 2008 policy obligating the BMC to provide ownership housing to sanitary workers had remained unimplemented, asking whether the civic body “with an abundance of resources available to it” would continue to deprive the sanitary workers of such benefits. It further questioned if it would be “conscionable” for the BMC commissioner or the municipal machinery to neglect employees “merely because they belong to the lowest rung in the hierarchy of employees of the corporation”.

The court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by sanitation workers seeking implementation of the 2008 housing policy. The remarks came after the court found that an affidavit filed by the municipal commissioner failed to comply with its August 10 directions to identify a stock of municipal land to implement the policy.

The BMC on July 17 had filed an affidavit, stating that it would take stock of its lands for the implementation of the GR. However, it clarified that the disposal of BMC land was not at the sole discretion of the commissioner, and as per the terms of the government policy, the state government would have to allot land to the corporation for its implementation.

Replying to this, the court had directed the corporation to clarify which land could be utilised for constructing the houses, after which a clear perspective would be available on record to ascertain if the corporation was required to approach the state government to locate the land.

However, the court on Monday said it was “not satisfied with the affidavit” submitted by the BMC, dubbing it “vague”. While refraining from drawing any inference, it remarked that there was some “attempt on the part of some municipal officers to suppress such information or there was an intention that the court not be apprised of the details of the lands and the nature of lands”.

Concluding that the issue required “deeper sensitivity and due consideration”, the court directed the BMC to reconsider the contents of its affidavit and place an appropriate fresh affidavit on record by September 9.