Delhi High Court
Smt. Sunita vs Assistant Chief Of Air Staff ... on 16 October, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16th October, 2012
+ LPA No.692/2012
SMT. SUNITA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj & Ms. Minal
Sehgal, Advs.
Versus
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF AIR
STAFF (WORKS) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This appeal impugns the order dated 02.05.2012 of the learned
Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C) No.9484/2007 preferred by the
appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the order dated
11.09.2007 of the Additional District Judge exercising powers of an
Appellate Authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971, partly allowing the appeal preferred by the
appellant against the order dated 29.08.2006 of the Estate Officer. The
Estate Officer, vide the said order had held the appellant liable to pay a
sum of `7,944/- per month with effect from 21.07.2006 for unauthorized
use and occupation of the official accommodation.
2. The Additional District Judge, on appeal aforesaid by the appellant,
held the appellant liable to pay the said sum of `7,944/- with effect from
11.01.2007 instead of from 21.07.2006.
3. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge records that
though the appellant had in the writ petition made several submissions
but did not press the same and confined the challenge to the order of the
Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant had been
discriminated vis-à-vis Smt. Annamma Yotannan. Though the counsel
for the appellant has again sought to make other submissions before us
but we are of the view that the appellant having given up the same before
the learned Single Judge is not entitled to re-agitate the same in this
appeal.
4. As far as the case of discrimination set up by the appellant is
concerned, the learned Single Judge has held the said Smt. Annamma
Yotannan to be not placed similarly as the appellant, for it to be said that
the appellant had been discriminated against.
5. The appellant, while posted as Stenographer with Air Force Central
Medical Establishment (AFCME) was in or about the year 2001 allotted
Quarter No.K-67, Civil Zone, Camero Complex, Subroto Park, Delhi
Cantt., New Delhi. She was vide order dated 10.05.2006 promoted to the
post of Private Secretary and posted from AFCME to Headquarter,
Western Air Command (HQWAC). It is not in dispute that upon such
promotion, she was required to vacate the said quarter. She however
wanted to retain the same till she was allotted another quarter at her next
Unit i.e. HQWAC. Though she was granted extension for retaining the
quarter for ten days, but her request was declined. The appellant however
continued in occupation and we are today informed that she finally
vacated, recently on 10.10.2012 when she was allotted residential
accommodation pertaining to her present post at HQWAC.
6. The Estate Officer in the meanwhile passed the order dated
20.08.2006 holding the appellant to be in unauthorized occupation with
effect from 21.07.2006 i.e. after two months of the date when she was
required to vacate the quarter.
7. The learned Additional District Judge on appeal, finding that the
Rules entitle the appellant to retain the quarter up to six months beyond
the permissible period of two months or till the end of School / College /
Academic year of the children, held the appellant to be in unauthorized
occupation only with effect from 11.01.2007 and thus liable for charges
for unauthorized use and occupation at the rate of `7,944/- per month
with effect from the said date only.
8. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment on the only
plea of discrimination urged before him, has found that Smt. Annamma
Yotannan was allowed to retain the official accommodation since no built
up accommodation was available in the Unit to which she had been
transferred while accommodation was available in HQWAC to which the
appellant had been transferred though the appellant was on the wait-list.
It was thus held that the appellant could not claim parity.
9. The counsel for the appellant has argued that it is immaterial as to
whether the Unit to which an employee is transferred does not have any
accommodation or that accommodation though available is not
immediately available. Attention in this regard is invited to the Circular
titled 'Retention of accommodation in Big Cities by and recovery of rent
from Civilians paid from Defence Services Estimates who are posted to
nearby stations and vice-versa" providing for the employees transferred
to nearby stations being permitted to continue in occupation of their
quarters on payment of normal rent provided no accommodation is
available for them in their new duty stations. It is argued that Smt.
Annamma Yotannan was allowed to so retain the accommodation under
the said Circular.
10. The said Circular does not create any right in favour of the
employees to continue in occupation of their quarters and vests discretion
in the Authorities to allow them to so continue, on case to case basis.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent, appearing on advance notice,
has on the contrary invited our attention to the Statutory Rules in this
regard and relying whereupon, the Additional District Judge also has held
the entitlement of the appellant to continue in occupation for a maximum
period of eight months only.
12. We, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decisions of the
Authorities, of while allowing one employee to continue in occupation of
quarter, not granting such permission to the appellant. We are not
exercising powers of appeal over such orders of the Authorities of the
respondents. No case of any bias or perversity in refusing permission to
the appellant is made out. If it were to be held that owing to the Circular
aforesaid every employee transferred to nearby station has a right to
continue in occupation of the accommodation allotted to him / her, it will
make the Statutory Rules infructuous and may lead to a situation where
all accommodation will be occupied by transferred employees leaving no
accommodation for the employees being transferred to the big cities.
These are purely administrative matters in which the Courts generally
refrain from interfering. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal
and dismiss the same.
13. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the
appellant is the sole earning member of her family and her husband is
ailing and the appellant will be in dire straits if made to pay the charges
for unauthorized use and occupation at `7944/- per month from
11.01.2007 till 10.10.2012. On the said plea, notwithstanding the
dismissal of this appeal, we observe that it will be open to the appellant to
make a representation to the Authorities concerned on compassionate
grounds and we are confident, if the Authorities concerned are satisfied as
to the genuineness of the said plea of the appellant, shall consider the
representation of the apellant sympathetically.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 16, 2012
'gsr'
