The Delhi HC in, PROF. P R RAMANUJAM v. VICE-CHANCELLOR (IGNOU) & ANR, rejected the plea of the leniency of Ex-Pro_VC of IGNOU for overstaying at the residential accommodation on compassionate ground and also the pandemic. The Court thus stated that ‘Compassion beyond the law is not permissible’ and also held that since he served at a very high position during his tenure he should be bound by the rules.
Facts
The Petitioner is Ex-Pro-Vice Chancellor of Indra Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) who was superannuated from the University on 31st August 2019 where he was allotted a residential place. On 4th Sept. 2019, he sought an extension for retention of the place for 8 months and was granted so. Six days prior to the end of his extension he sought more extension due to pandemic for 6 months, however, an extension for only a month was granted. However, later Petitioner was granted permission to retain the flat for another five months i.e. till 31st October 2020 but on payment of 65 times of normal license fee i.e. Rs. 77,350/- per month. The petitioner thus moved the court for the following reason and asked for leniency
Submissions of Petitioners
The Petitioner is a disabled person and contended that the reason for the extension was the lockdown. Thus the petitioner stated he ought to be given permission to retain the premises till 31st July 2020 on double the license fee, on compassionate grounds and charging of 65 times the license fees is too steep. Mainly the petitioner relied on the fact that since he worked at a very high position at IGNOU and continued to serve for a number of years, it was unreasonable to charge such amount.
Submissions of Respondents
Counsel submitted that though they were compassionate they had to go by the House Allotment Rules. The first extension was given at Rs.1198/- per month and the second was given at Rs. 2350/- per month. Despite this, the petitioner was not satisfied. During his tenure, he had to pay a rent of Rs. 53,510/- and thus as against the monthly rent of Rs.53,510/- per month, the University is demanding Rs.77,350/- per month which is comparable market rent which the Petitioner is bound to pay as per the rules. Reliance was made on the Ministry of Urban Development Office Memorandum dated 6th December 2012, which spoke of 65 times rent for overstay.
Rejoinder
In the rejoinder, reliance was made on Rule 11.2.5 and Rule 22.1 to argue that as per the House Allotment Rules of IGNOU, the Petitioner was entitled to eight months and therefore the Petitioner has not overstayed to the extent as has been made out by the Respondent.
Analysis and Findings
The Court was reluctant to be lenient to the petitioner and stated that “There is no doubt that the Petitioner has held a very high position in the IGNOU and is also disabled. However, the Petitioner, having served at a high position in the IGNOU, ought to in fact give greater credence and importance to the Allotment Rules, which apply.” The court even rejected pandemic as an excuse as the retirement of the Petitioner took place in August 2019 i.e. 6-7 months before the outbreak of the pandemic in India and stated that force majeure would have no applicability here. The Court finally observed, “Compassion beyond the law is not permissible. The Allotment Rules and the binding Notification make it quite clear that any person who overstays would have to pay the damages as applicable. The Petitioner having held such
a high position – stated to be the second-highest position in IGNOU, ought to be equally bound by the rules that apply.”
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
