Delhi High Court
Alok Awasthi vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 May, 2016
$~1 to 6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7680/2015 and CM APPL. 14988/2015
ALOK AWASTHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 7687/2015 and CM APPL. 15064/2015
LT COL PUSHKAR SALUJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 7831/2015 and CM APPL. 15551/2015
SATISH KANDPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
WP(C) 7680/2015 Page 1 of 6
+ W.P.(C) 8435/2015 and CM APPL. 18075/2015
COL K S KAJAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate with
Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 9055/2015 and CM APPL. 20474/2015
COL S S GILL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate with
Ms. Dipanjali Tyagi, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 9098/2015 and CM APPL. 20607/2015
COL VIRENDRA MOHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC
WP(C) 7680/2015 Page 2 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% 30.05.2016
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 08.03.2016, on which
date we had examined the background in which the impugned order dated
30.01.2015 was issued by the respondent No.3. In the course of arguments,
counsel for the petitioners had stated that the petitioners are aggrieved by the
manner in which the respondents have sought to foist upon them only one
option, i.e. for claiming HRA, while depriving them of the other options as
available and duly mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order and
reproduced in para 5 of our order dated 08.03.2016, which was to the effect
that they are entitled to regular government accommodation or hired
accommodation or accommodation on HRR. In view of the said submission,
counsel for the respondents had sought time to file an additional affidavit to
justify their stand that though the impugned order does mention four options
only one option could have been practically granted to the petitioners, which
is of accommodation on HRA.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an additional affidavit was filed by the
respondents on 30.03.2016 and a reply thereto was filed by the petitioners
on 10.05.2016. In the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, it has
been clarified that the rental ceiling of accommodation hired by the DEO is
Rs.11,000/-p.m., which was revised in the year 2009 and no accommodation
is available for hiring on the existing ceiling rates. It has also been stated
that the lease of all the houses hired earlier by the DEO had expired in the
year 2012 and at present, there is no MEO hired accommodation held with
the Station Headquarters for allotment.
3. Coming to the aspect of accommodation on HRR basis, it has been
stated in the affidavit that the accommodation to be hired on HRR basis is to
be sponsored by the officer himself at the same rental ceiling of Rs.11,000/-
per month and in consonance thereto, all the petitioners were requested to
submit addresses of the houses proposed to be hired by them but only one
officer had submitted a reply stating inter alia that he had not been able to
find a suitable accommodation within the rental ceiling rates. The affidavit
concluded by stating that since no other option is available with the
respondents, the only remedy available if is of payment of HRA, for which
NAC shall be given by the Station Headquarters, Delhi Cantt.
4. In their reply to the additional affidavit, the petitioners have asserted
that there are more than 200 houses at various stages of repair and if the
respondents genuinely wish to help the officers in waiting for
accommodation, the Station Headquarters would have made suitable efforts
to expedite the repairs so that these houses are/can be made available for
allotment. It was also submitted that it is in view of the ridiculously low
amount of rental ceiling that the petitioners have not been able to
successfully identify accommodation for the purpose of being hired by the
respondents. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the
petitioners on the hardship being faced by the petitioners due to the
respondents declining them permission to continue occupying the residential
accommodation during the period of their study leave.
5. In their rejoinder dated 23.05.2016, the respondents have sought to
highlight the fact that the allotment/retention of accommodation by study
leave officers increases the pressure on accommodation primarily meant for
officers posted in Delhi and have emphasised the fact that accommodation
hired by the CAO is also on a sharp decline due to low rates of rent being
offered. Further, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the
respondents are slow in repairing the houses in the pool is refuted by counsel
for the respondent by pointing out that repair of houses is an ongoing
process due to their vintage and as on date, only 49 houses are under repair,
which amounts to only 4% of the total houses held.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that instead of
pressing the petitions any further, the petitioners may be granted a
reasonable time upto 31.07.2016 , to vacate the residential accommodations
being occupied by them so that by then their examinations are over. Further,
it is requested that the respondents be restrained from charging market rent
in respect of the said accommodations being occupied by the petitioners, till
31.07.2016.
7. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners appears
to be reasonable to us. It is an undisputed position that the petitioners have
to appear for their examinations in various courses in this duration, for
which they have taken study leave and most of the examinations shall be
over in the month of June, 2016. Thereafter, the petitioners would require a
reasonable time of at least one month to shift from the accommodations
presently being occupied by them.
8. Accordingly, the present petitions are disposed of with permission
granted to the petitioners to continue occupying the accommodations
presently under their occupation till 31.07.2016. Till the said date, the
respondents shall not levy market rent in respect of the said
accommodations. However, if any of the petitioners default in vacating the
said accommodations by 31.07.2016, the respondents shall be entitled to
initiate eviction proceedings against them and claim market rent in
accordance with law.
9. The petitions are disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SUNIL GAUR, J
MAY 30, 2016
rkb/mk
