Peeru Bhawana vs N.C.T. Of Delhi & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 752 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 953/2008

      PEERU BHAWANA                        ..... Petitioner
                              Through         Mr. B. Krishan, Adv.
                     versus

      N.C.T OF DELHI & ORS       .... Respondent
                         Through       Ms. Reeta Kaul, Adv.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

% 09.02.2010

On 13th April, 2006, the petitioner, Mr. Peeru Bawana was appointed as

a Sweeper in National Cadet Corps Groups, on compassionate grounds after

death of his father. The said appointment was made after the Central

Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi vide judgment dated 20th May, 2005 had

directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

compassionate appointment. Thereupon, the petitioner's case for

appointment on compassionate ground was approved by the Government of

NCT of Delhi on 9th August, 2005.

2. The petitioner was residing with his father in Type-I accommodation

W.P.(C) 953/2008 Page 1 located at Meerabai Polytechnic Campus, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi . The

petitioner continued to reside and occupy the said property even after death

of his father and since his appointment as a Sweeper on 13th April, 2006. The

petitioner after appointment is eligible for allotment of government

accommodation from general pool as well as from the pool of government of

NCT of Delhi. Meera Bai Polytechnic is a part of the Directorate of Training

and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi.

3. The respondent, Government of NCT of Delhi has refused to regularize

the allotment of Type-I accommodation at Meera Bai Polytechnic Campus,

Maharani Bagh, New Delhi relying upon circular dated 9th March, 1999. The

relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"2. The matter has been considered...........the eligible ward/spouse of the ex-allottee may submit their applications for regularization/allotment of alternate accommodation within a period of two months from the date of retirement or death. In cases of death where employment is secured within the permissible period of retention, such application may be made within two months from the date of employment in an eligible office. In case the applications are not submitted within the prescribed time limit, the applicant shall be liable to be rendered ineligible for the

W.P.(C) 953/2008 Page 2 concession of regularization/allotment of alternate accommodation and even in cases where such requests are entertained, he/ she shall pay damages for the period of overstay, in case the alternate accommodation could not be offered within the permitted period of retention of Government accommodation."

4. Relying upon the aforesaid clause, eviction proceedings under the

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were initiated

against the petitioner and eviction order dated 12 th June, 2006 was passed by

the Estate Officer. The said order has been upheld by the Additional District

Judge vide impugned order dated 4th December, 2007.

5. The circular dated 9th March, 1999, issued by the Directorate of Estates

stipulates that eligible ward/spouse of the ex-allottee can submit their

applications for regularization/allotment of alternate accommodation within a

period of two months from the date of retirement or death. It further

stipulates that in cases of death, where employment is secured within the

permissible period of retention, such application may be made within two

months from the date of employment in eligible office. The last portion

stipulates that in case the applications are not submitted within the

prescribed time limit, the applicant shall be ineligible for the concession of

W.P.(C) 953/2008 Page 3 regularization/allotment of alternate accommodation and even in cases

where such requests are entertained, he/she shall be liable to pay damages

for the period of overstay.

6. As noticed above, in the present case the petitioner had applied for

appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father on 11th

January 2003. The respondents, however, did not accept the said request of

the petitioner and this forced the petitioner to file a petition before the

Central Administrative Tribunal. The said petition was decided vide judgment

dated 20.5.2005 and thereupon the case of the petitioner was approved by

the Government of NCT of Delhi on 9th August, 2005. The petitioner was

appointed and has been working as a Sweeper from 13th April, 2006. The

eviction order passed by the Estate Officer is dated 12th June, 2006. The facts

of the case stated above do not establish and show any default or lapse on

the part of the petitioner but the respondents themselves did not process the

application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and forced the

petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. Even after the

order dated 20th May, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Government of NCT of Delhi took time to process and issue letter of

W.P.(C) 953/2008 Page 4 appointment dated 9th August, 2005. Thereafter, there was again delay and

the petitioner was employed on 13th April, 2006. The said periods cannot be

counted for the purpose of calculating the time prescribed in the circular

dated 9th March, 1999. Keeping in mind, conduct of the respondents in the

present case, the aforesaid clause cannot be applied. The petitioner cannot be

penalized for fault of the respondents and delay on their part. It is also

noticed that the petitioner is working as Sweeper and is entitled to Type-I

quarter. It will not be fair to compare the case of the petitioner with the cases

of allotment to officers.

7. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Estate Officer dated 12th June, 2005, and upheld by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 4th December, 2007, are set aside and quashed. It is, however, open to the respondents to allot another accommodation to the petitioner, if they require the accommodation presently in occupation of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has stated at bar that the petitioner will not object to the allotment of an alternative accommodation and is ready and willing to shift. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       FEBRUARY 09, 2010
       NA




W.P.(C) 953/2008                                                          Page 5