Sh. B.M.Bhatnagar vs M/S Hindustan Vegetable Oils ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4867 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 6616/2013
%                                                    23rd October, 2013

SH. B.M.BHATNAGAR                                    ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Diwhar
                                         Takiar, Ms. Ekta Vats and Mr.
                                         Jagmeet Radhawa, Advocates.


                          VERSUS

M/S HINDUSTAN VEGETABLE OILS CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
                                   ...... Respondents
                 Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No. 14381/2013 (Exemption)

      Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
      CM stands disposed of.
WP(C) 6616/2013

1.    By this writ petition, petitioner claims the relief of being paid his

retiral dues. This writ petition is filed in October, 2013 and petitioner's

services were terminated in terms of the orders of the departmental

authorities w.e.f 17.3.1998 i.e about 15 years earlier.
WPC 6616/2013                                                             Page 1 of 5
 2.    The admitted facts which appear on record are that petitioner as an

employee of the respondent no.1 was allotted an accommodation at 7670,

G.T. Road, Subzi Mandi, Clock Tower, Delhi-7. Petitioner in spite of being

transferred from Delhi did not vacate the accommodation at Delhi. After

repeated reminders, departmental proceedings were initiated and they

culminated in dismissal of the petitioner from services w.e.f 17.3.1998.

Petitioner still obdurately refused to vacate the official accommodation and

the official accommodation was ultimately vacated only in 2011. Petitioner

had challenged the orders of the departmental authorities in WP(C)

5263/1998 and which petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this

Court as per its judgment dated 9.12.2011. Para 9 of the said judgment

would have some bearing and is therefore reproduced as under:-


      "9. However, the facts of the present case stare us in the face. The
      petitioner retained unauthorized occupation of the official
      accommodation for 35 years i.e. for a term longer than his service
      with the respondent. He refused to vacate the same even after the
      dismissal order had been issued against him. He refused to vacate the
      same for eight years after the date of superannuation also. The
      petitioner is found to have violated the law with impunity and
      deserves no sympathy or any equitable relief from the Court. The
      benefit enjoyed by the petitioner from the unauthorized occupation of
      the premises situated in a prime sought after locality for 35 long years
      is far far more than the retiral dues of which the petitioner may have
      been deprived. In fact the counsel for the petitioner could not even
      inform us whether there was / is any provision for pension in the
      respondent company. The petitioner is found to have abused the
WPC 6616/2013                                                              Page 2 of 5
       process of law by embroiling the respondent in litigations,
      representations and appeals at various stages which is also evident
      from the long period of six years for which the disciplinary
      proceedings remained pending & fifteen years since when
      proceedings under Section 630 supra are pending. In fact, it is the
      respondent who has shown extreme tolerance in initiating the
      disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner after 16 years of the
      petitioner continuing in unauthorized occupation of the premises. The
      petitioner has vacated the premises now only, perhaps seeing that he
      could not retain the same any longer. Such litigants ought not to be
      encouraged in any manner by the Courts. We have enquired from the
      counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner is willing to pay the
      market rent, as may be assessed, of the premises for the 35 years of
      unauthorized occupation. No such willingness is shown. The writ
      petition is accordingly dismissed." (underling added)



3.           Therefore, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner as an

obdurate and recalcitrant employee in gross violation of service rules

illegally held on to an accommodation for as long as 35 years i.e even more

than the period of service of the petitioner. When the Division Bench put a

suggestion which is recorded in its judgment dated 9.12.2011 as to whether

petitioner is ready to pay market rent, obviously, the petitioner declined. The

fact of the matter is that the entitlement to claim retiral dues firstly arose in

favour of the petitioner when he was dismissed from service on 17.3.1998,

though of course, the orders of the departmental authorities were challenged

and which ultimately achieved finalization in terms of the judgment of the

Division Bench dated 9.12.2011, however, the fact of the matter is that
WPC 6616/2013                                                                 Page 3 of 5
 extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India should only be exercised in favour of deserving

persons. As stated above, petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said

to be a person deserving of any relief from this Court. Obviously, lot of

benefit (prime estate in Delhi is valuable) would have been taken by the

petitioner on account of illegally holding on to the accommodation for as

long as 35 years and which would have caused loss to the employer-

respondent no.1, and therefore, the employer-respondent no.1 is entitled to

contend that nothing is payable to the petitioner on account of retiral dues,

and which can and may have been adjusted towards claims of the respondent

no.1 against the petitioner for the illegal accommodation for the allotted

quarter.


4.           Counsel for the petitioner did contend very seriously that the

impugned order which is passed is a non-speaking order of one line stating

that nothing is due, and this order is dated 1.1.2013, however, in a case like

this, I do not think that any speaking order is required to be passed when the

petitioner himself is guilty of illegally holding on to the accommodation for

as long as 35 years and surely with respect to which illegal action

appropriation of the amounts due to the petitioner have taken place by the

WPC 6616/2013                                                              Page 4 of 5
 respondent no.1 as the loss to the employer is the market rent payable during

the period of illegal occupation as long as of 35 years.


5.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the

same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




OCTOBER 23, 2013                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib