Delhi Transport Corporation, New ... vs Sh.Kamal Kumar Ahuja
2010 Latest Caselaw 1875 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          WP(C) No.2334/2010
%
                       Date of Decision: 09.04.2010

Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi                   .... Petitioner
                   Through Mr.Siddhartha, Advocate.

                                  Versus

Sh.Kamal Kumar Ahuja                                   .... Respondent
                Through         Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.   Whether reporters of Local papers may be            YES
     allowed to see the judgment?
2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?              NO
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported             NO
     in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioner has impugned the order dated 23rd September,

2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench,

New Delhi in O.A. No.602 of 2009, titled as 'Kamal Kumar Ahuja v.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another', allowing the original

application of the respondent and quashing the order of the petitioner

withholding his gratuity amount though no amount was due from the

respondent to the petitioner.

This is not disputed that the respondent was not allotted Quarter

No.17, DTC Colony, G.T.Karnal Road, New Delhi, which was allotted to

his father. The father of the respondent had liability in respect of the

said quarter which was not paid, and consequently, the proceedings

were initiated against Sh.Bhagwan Das, the father of the respondent,

which continued after his demise against his legal representatives

including the respondent.

This is not disputed by the petitioner that under the provision of

Section 13(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971, the liability for damages or costs of removal after

the death of the person liable for the same is payable by his heirs or

legal representatives, but such liability is limited to the extent of the

assets of the deceased in the hands of legal representatives or heirs.

The Tribunal has allowed the petition of the respondent and set

aside the order of the petitioner withholding the gratuity of the

respondent, as the respondent had contended that after the demise of

his father, he had not inherited any assets against which any liability

could be invoked by the petitioner against the respondent. The

petitioner did not produce anything to rebut the plea of the respondent

that he had not inherited any assets from his father after his demise.

Since the plea of the respondent remains un-rebutted, the

petitioner is not entitled to withhold the gratuity in any manner as has

been held by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal while allowing the application of the respondent

quashed the order of the petitioner withholding the gratuity amount of

the respondent but has also given liberty to the petitioner to initiate

appropriate recovery proceedings against the respondent, if it is

established by the petitioner that he had inherited any assets from his

late father Sh.Bhagwan Das.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

bona fide believes that the respondent had inherited assets from his

father. In view of the categorical assertion and plea of the respondent

that he had not inherited any assets, merely on the basis of alleged

bona fide belief of the petitioner and his official, the gratuity of the

respondent could not be withhold only on the basis of such alleged

bonafide belief.

Such withholding of the gratuity of the respondent is contrary to

Section 13 (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the

circumstances, has not been able to justify any ground on which the

petitioner was entitled to withhold the gratuity of the respondent.

In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal allowing the

original application of the respondent and quashing the order of the

petitioner withholding the gratuity of the respondent does not suffer

from any such illegality or irregularity which shall require any

interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, is without any merit, and it is, therefore,

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

APRIL 09, 2010                                MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'