Delhi High Court
J.P. Singhal vs Lic Of India & Others on 6 April, 2009
Author: Kailash Gambhir
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP (C) Nos. 3501/2001
% Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2009
J.P. Singhal ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate with
Ms. Geeta Goel, Advocate
versus
LIC of India & Others ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Alpana Poddar, Advocate for
R-3.
Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate for
LIC/respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)
*
1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions for declaring
the deduction/recovery of Rs. 1,40,907.75 made by the
respondent/LIC out of his retirement benefits, as illegal and
unjustified. Mr. Vijay Gupta, counsel for the petitioner submits
that vide orders dated 1.8.1990 the petitioner had gone on
deputation with the DDA initially for a period of two years w.e.f.
1st August, 1990 till 31st July, 1992 and thereafter the said
period of deputation was extended till 28th February, 1993.
Counsel further submits that when the petitioner was with his
parent Department he was allotted Government accommodation
i.e. premises bearing No. 64, Janpath, New Delhi along with a
garage. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was never
allotted any accommodation by the DDA till 6.1.1992 when an
offer was made for allotment of an accommodation at Asiad
village. Counsel further submits that although prior to that an
offer was made to allot accommodation at Bhagwan Das Road
but the same was subject to vacation by its occupant. Counsel
submits that the said premises were never vacated by the
occupant and the offer, which was made on 6.1.1992 was
illusory in nature as by that time only about six months time was
left for the deputation period of the petitioner to expire.
Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner
would have been unnecessarily put to harassment to shift from
Janpath to Asiad as the only six months period was left to expire.
Counsel thus submits that the respondent/LIC has illegally
deducted the said amount from his retiral benefits.
2. Ms. Alpana Poddar, counsel for the respondent/DDA
on the other hand submits that vide orders dated 6 th January,
1992 the respondent DDA had allotted staff quarter No. 6/590,
Asiad Games Village complex in place of earlier offer made to
the petitioner, but without any reasons the petitioner did not
occupy the said premises. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner was to occupy the said premises within a period of
eight days in terms of the said office order. Counsel further
submits that this is a normal and routine exercise for the
officers to shift from one place to another and there was no
reason for the petitioner not to occupy the said accommodation
offered to him. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was well
aware that once he was accepting the said post on deputation he
would be shifting to some other accommodation after vacating
the premises of the LIC.
3. Mr. Kamal Mehta, counsel representing LIC submits that
order under Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of
unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was passed against the
petitioner vide order dated 3rd July, 1992 and the said order
became final after the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner
filed before the District Judge. Counsel further submits that once
the petitioner continued to occupy the said premises of the LIC,
after being sent on deputation to DDA, the action of the
respondent LIC was absolutely legal and justified to recover the
said amount of Rs.1,40,907.75 from his retiral benefits.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. I do not find that there was any justification in
petitioner's not shifting to the premises at Asiad games village,
offer of which was made to the petitioner vide office order dated
6th January, 1992. Prior thereto, however, since the DDA failed to
provide the vacant accommodation to the petitioner, therefore,
for the period i.e. from the date of deputation till 5th January,
1992 it was the responsibility of the DDA to reimburse the rental
charges of the said accommodation of to the LIC and for which
the petitioner can not be held responsible. I do not find myself
in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the
petitioner, who states that the offer made to the petitioner vide
order dated 6.1 1992 was illusory in nature. The petitioner had
accepted the offer of deputation knowing fully well that he would
be given an accommodation by the DDA and, therefore, will have
to vacate the premises at Janpath. It is quite natural and
consequential that the officer sent on deputation is not
supposed to retain the accommodation of his parent
department. Therefore there was no reason for the petitioner
not to have shifted to the said accommodation. I am, therefore,
of the view that the respondent DDA shall pay the amount from
1st August, 1990 till 5th January, 1992 to the petitioner directly
along with interest @ 12% from the date when the said amount
was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner.
However, from 6th January, 1992 the responsibility will be of the
petitioner and, therefore, no directions can be given for the
refund of the said recovery, made by the LIC. As regards other
charges shown at page 58 pertaining to water and geyser, it is
made clear that all such charges for the period effective from 1st
August, 1990 to 5th January, 1992 shall be the responsibility of
the DDA and thereafter that of the petitioner. In respect of the
garage which was a part of the said accommodation same
principle will apply.
With these directions the petition is disposed of.
April 06, 2009 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
rkr
