Delhi High Court
V.K. Kapoor vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 September, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 9th September, 2015.
+ W.P.(C) 4473/2014
V.K. KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bijender Singh, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Latika Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2
to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The petition, i) impugns the order dated 18 th June, 2009 of the Board
of Governors of the respondent No.3 Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology
(NSIT), Dwarka, New Delhi to charge the petitioner according to the NSIT
House Allotment Rules, ii) seeks a direction to the respondents viz.
Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), NSIT and its President and Estate
Manager to refund the amount of Rs.3,29,283/- deducted from the dues of
the petitioner on account of market rent of the house, iii) seeks a direction for
payment to petitioner of honorarium for discharge of duties and
responsibilities of the post of Registrar, and iv) seeks a direction for fixing
the responsibility of the officer who failed to act on the application dated 18 th
July, 2008 of the petitioner.
2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of respondents. The counsels have been heard.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that:
(i) He joined the respondent No.3 NSIT as a Visiting Associate in
the School of Applied Sciences (Mathematics) on 19 th August, 1999,
initially on ad-hoc basis and was subsequently on 29th June, 2000
appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics).
(ii) On 16th October, 2002 he was assigned the function of the
Registrar and was, in addition to his academic duties, also discharging
duties of a Registrar.
(iii) On 16th October, 2002 he was also allocated accommodation, as
per the Rules, within the NSIT Campus.
(iv) On 1st August, 2007 he was appointed to the post of Professor-
cum-Director at MERI College of Engineering and Technology,
Bahadurgarh and the Board of Governors of the respondent No.3
NSIT granted on year long leave (Extraordinary Leave) without pay
w.e.f. 1st August, 2007 to 31st July, 2008 to the petitioner to enable
him to take up the said assignment.
(v) The petitioner on 26th May, 2008 applied to respondent No.3
NSIT seeking extension of his Extraordinary Leave for another one
year from 1st August, 2008 to 31st July, 2009 and which was granted
vide communication dated 18th June, 2008.
(vi) The petitioner during the first one year of his Extraordinary
Leave had been allowed to retain the house aforesaid allotted to him;
the petitioner upon extension of his Extraordinary Leave for the period
from 1st August, 2008 to 31st July, 2009, on 18th July, 2008 submitted
an application to retain the house on the conditions as applicable to the
previous year and further stated that he will pay all dues in respect of
licence fee, electricity and water charges etc.
(vii) Neither any reply was received to the aforesaid application
dated 18th July, 2008 nor was the petitioner called upon to vacate the
house.
(viii) On 9th February, 2009 the petitioner was served with a
consolidated bill for Rs.1,66,934/- on account of house rent for the
period from 1st August, 2008 to 31st January, 2009 at the market rate
of Rs.25,125.40 per month.
(ix) The petitioner represented to the Board of Governors of the
respondent NO.3 NSIT thereagainst and which was vide impugned
Resolution dated 18th June, 2009 decided to charge the petitioner for
the period from 1st August, 2008 to 31st July, 2009 at the market rate
only.
The counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner on 30 th June,
2009 surrendered the possession of the aforesaid house to the respondent
No.3 NSIT and further informs that the petitioner has since joined the MERI
College of Engineering and Technology, Bahadurgarh on a permanent post
and has ceased to be an employee of respondent No.3 NSIT.
4. The counsel for the petitioner does not controvert that as per the
House Allotment Rules of the respondent No.3 NSIT, the petitioner could
retain the house during the Extraordinary Leave, maximum for a period of
one year only and retention if permitted beyond the said one year for a
further period of maximum one year is to be on payment of market rent. His
contention however is that since the petitioner vide his letter dated 18th July,
2008 supra had represented / sought permission for being allowed to retain
the house for another one year on the "conditions as applicable presently"
and which means without payment of market rent and further since no
response was given thereto, the petitioner has been caught unaware with the
claim for market rent. It is further contended that had the respondent No.3
NSIT raise the bills for market rent month by month, immediately after the
period of one year of Extraordinary Leave had expired, the petitioner would
have been cautioned that he would be charged market rent and would have
surrendered the house earlier.
5. The counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 NSIT states that the
representation of the petitioner for being allowed to retain the house for
another one year without payment of market rent could have been considered
only by the Board of Governors of the respondent No.3 NSIT and who vide
the impugned Resolution dated 18th June, 2009 have resolved that the
petitioner cannot be so permitted. She further contends that the petitioner at
the time of availing of the Extraordinary Leave had filed an undertaking in
the form of an affidavit in which he had stated that he will abide by the
House Allotment Rules of the respondent No.3 NSIT.
6. The relevant Rule of the respondent No.3 NSIT in this regard is as
under:-
"10. Concessional period for further retention of Residence:
10.1 A Residence allotted to any employee may be retained on the
occurrence of any of the events specified in column 1 in the Table below
for the period specified against each except as specified for earmarked
houses, provided that the residence is required for the bonafide use of the
officer or members of his family:
_________________________________________________________
Event Maximum period for
retention of residence
___________________________________________________________
i) .................................
ii) .................................
iii) .................................
iv) .................................
v) .................................
vi) .................................
vii) .................................
viii) Deputation / Lien One year or period of
Deputation / lien
Whichever is less.
Note: For (vi), (vii) and (viii) the retention of residence on normal rent will be
allowed only if the residence is retained for bonafide use by the members of the
employee's family. The retention of residence beyond the periods indicated above
may be allowed at the discretion of the Director on payment of Market Rent, upto
a maximum of further one year. Thereafter, the matter may be put up to the Board
of Governors."
7. A reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it abundantly clear that the
Rules do not permit any discretion in the matter of levy of market rent, even
if the house is allowed to be retained for a period of more than one year. It is
thus felt that it was not within the domain and power of the Board of
Governors of the respondent No.3 NSIT to allow the petitioner to retain the
house for the further period of one year at any rate lower than the market
rent.
8. Faced therewith, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner was not aware of the Rules.
9. Not only ignorance of law / rules is no defence in law but the
petitioner, as appointed out by the counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4
NSIT, had in the affidavit aforesaid expressly undertaken to abide by the
House Allotment Rules and today cannot turn around and state that he was
not aware thereof.
10. As far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner of his having
been misguided by no decision on his representation dated 18 th July, 2008
having been taken immediately and the bills towards market rent having not
been raised month by month is concerned, a reading of the letter dated 18th
July, 2008 shows that the petitioner therein was in fact seeking permission to
retain the house beyond one year and which discretion, as per the Note
aforesaid to the Rules, vested in the appropriate authorities of the respondent
No.3 NSIT. If the intent of the petitioner was that the market rent which was
necessarily payable for the said period of extension should be waived, he
ought to have expressly applied for the same and stated that if the market
rent was not being waived, he be informed immediately to be able to vacate
the accommodation.
11. The petitioner did not do anything of that sort and under the garb of
his application for being allowed to retain the house for a further period of
one year, is trying to retain the same without paying the market rent payable
as per Rules.
12. No other argument has been raised. No other reference has been
pressed.
13. There is thus no merit in the writ petition, dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
„gsr‟..
