Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 April, 2014
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 59
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18792 of 2014
Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
The petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by order dated 19.03.2014 whereby the allotment of House No. 216/2, T.B. Sapru Hospital Colony, which was allotted to the petitioner, as a clerk in the health department in the office of C.M.O., Allahabad, has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner has his own personal residence bearing House No. D.I.-17, Kalindipuram, Allahabad. An inquiry was ordered by the Tehsildar Sadar, who visited the said residence, where Smt. Snehlata wife of the petitioner stated that the said house had been purchased by the petitioner and that she along with his family members is residing in that house.
These facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments.
In para 9 of the writ petition, these facts have not been disputed by the petitioner that he has got his own house constructed in Kalindipuram in April, 2013 but his job being of emergency nature, he has to stay in the hospital premises. This reasoning on the face of it is absolutely absurd. Since the petitioner is a clerk in the office of C.M.O., he is not a doctor whose duty can be said to be of emergency nature, who needs to reside in the hospital premises, in spite of having his own constructed house being House No. D.I.-17, Kalindipuram, Allahabad.
The Supreme Court in (2010) 15 SCC 788, Union of India Vs. Sisir Kumar Deb, has held as follows:-
"3. The respondent having retired from service was expected to vacate the quarter occupied by him as an employee of the Railway Administration. He failed to do so. In proceedings bearing No. 148 of 1988 arising out of MA No. 223 of 1897 in the matter of TA No. 1019 of 1986, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) passed an order to the following effect:
"Therefore, in our opinion, he has really committed contempt of this Tribunal. However, we give him a last chance to vacate the quarter and pay the arrears of rent within a month failing which he would be sent to civil prison until he complies with the order passed by the Tribunal in MA No. 223 of 1987 and the present order."
4. After this order was passed, since the respondent did not comply, the Railway Administration deducted the amount due from the pension relief admissible to the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed O.A. No. 599 of 1992 in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench). This OA was heard by the Judicial Member, Shri N. Sen Gupta who was also a Member of the Bench which heard the application and passed the extracted order. Even after taking note of the earlier order passed by the Bench to which he was a party, and was in fact its author, he proceeded to pass the impugned order by which the Department was precluded from recovering the amount from the pension relief and directed refund of the amount already recovered. What is now surprising is that after taking note of the earlier order in para 4 of the impugned order, instead of taking action against the respondent as per the earlier order, he directed the Railway Administration to refund the amount and even left the matter in regard to grant of complimentary passes open. Therefore, instead of taking action in contempt against the respondent by the impugned order, the Department was prevented from realising its dues from the respondent who overstayed the period post-retirement. The Tribunal also did not take note of this Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Shiv Charan by which this Court had permitted deduction of the charges due from the occupant from the dues payable to him. Besides, no valid ground has been given for not permitting the deduction to the Department. We find it difficult to comprehend the rationale for the view taken by the Judicial Member. Instead of ensuring delivery of possession from a person who, in violation of the Tribunal's order, was continuing to occupy the quarter and who could not have been said to have approached the Tribunal in OA No. 599 of 1992 with clean hands, the Tribunal has virtually rewarded him, in that, he can now continue to remain in occupation of the quarter indefinitely and also not pay the charges for the same. The learned Member should have visualised the situation that would arise by the said order. We, therefore, cannot allow the order to stand.
5. In the result, we set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.1993. We further make it clear that the Railway Administration will be free to take possession of the quarter from the respondent, if necessary, by use of force, if he does not deliver the possession within 15 days. The Railway Administration will also be free to recover its dues from any amount payable to the respondent and if the same falls short, the difference in accordance with law."
In this view of the matter, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of cancellation of the alloted house.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
It is also made clear that if the petitioner does not vacate the government quarter within fifteen days, the department may initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner for gross misconduct, and further as directed by the Supreme Court in (Sisir Kumar Deb's case) (supra); if necessary, take possession by use of force, if the petitioner does not deliver possession within 15 days.
Order Date :- 7.4.2014/Arun K. Singh
