Thursday, 30, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sk Sood vs Central Public Works Dept & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 921 Del

Citation : 2011 Latest Caselaw 921 Del
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2011

Delhi High Court
Sk Sood vs Central Public Works Dept & Anr. on 15 February, 2011
Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice
207.
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      LPA 158/2011


       SK SOOD                                     ..... Appellant
                          Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
                          Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Yadav,
                          Advocate.

                     versus

       CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPT & ANR... Respondents
                    Through Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC for UOI.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                   ORDER
%                  15.02.2011

       CM No. 3159/2011

Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just

exceptions.

CM No. 3158/2011

This is an application for condonation of delay of fifteen

days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi,

learned senior counsel along with Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. B.V. Niren, learned Standing

Counsel for the respondents, we find sufficient cause exist for

condonation of delay and accordingly delay stands condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 158/2011

The present appeal challenges the order dated 8th

December, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 11497/2009 whereby he has affirmed the

order passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby

he has concurred with the order passed by the Estate Officer

under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)

Act, 1971 (for brevity, Act).

2. It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel for the

appellant that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate

that the appellant was entitled to retain the quarter for a period

of eight months from the date of his relieving from Delhi and

further eighteen months if he was posted at a hard station. It is

contended by him that the appellant was relieved from Delhi on

21st September, 2004 to join at Jaipur and while he was serving

at Jaipur, he was not provided a quarter. He was transferred to

Bikaner on 12th April, 2005 and, therefore, he is covered by the

circular which postulates that if an employee is posted at a hard

station, he is entitled to retain the quarter for eighteen months.

Mr. Niren, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that

the computation of eighteen months has to be done from the

date of his last posting and solely because the appellant was not

given an accommodation at Jaipur, he cannot claim the right to

possess a quarter at Delhi for a period of eighteen months.

3. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single

Judge, it is perceptible that he has taken into consideration the

period from 21st May, 2005 till 31st July, 2006 as authorized

accommodation on the foundation that the appellant could not

have got the benefit of the hard station posting as his last

posting was not at Delhi but at Jaipur. In our considered

opinion, the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge is

sound.

4. We have been apprised at the Bar that the competent

authority has the power to exonerate the penalty. It is submitted

by Mr. Sethi that the appellant was a Junior Engineer and a

heavy amount has been imposed towards penalty. It is also

urged by him that there was a misconception that he was

entitled to retain the quarter for eighteen months. Regard being

had to the totality of circumstances, we are only inclined to

modify the order of the learned single Judge that if appellant

makes a representation to the competent authority to exonerate

or waive or reduce the penalty, the said authority shall be well

advised to consider the same with utmost objectivity to waive or

reduce so that the employee who was under a misconception

may not put to enormous jeopardy to pay approximately

Rs.2,30,000/-. If a representation in this regard is submitted

within a period of six weeks, the same shall be dealt with by the

competent authority within a period of eight weeks therefrom.

Till the matter is finally dealt with, no coercive steps shall be

taken by the competent authority to realize the said sum.

5. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned

single Judge, the appeal stands disposed of without any order

as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

FEBRUARY 15, 2011 VKR

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter