Delhi High Court
Vijay Chowdhary vs Union Of India And Anr. on 20 September, 2016
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Dated: 20th September, 2016.
+ W.P.(C) 8316/2016 and C.M.No.34473/2016 (stay)
VIJAY CHOWDHARY
..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr.Sriram and Mr.Mimansak
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 26th August, 2016
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
Tribunal) whereby an O.A. filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the petition are that the father of the
petitioner was occupying a government accommodation being quarter
No.79, Type-II, North-West Moti Bagh, New Delhi. He retired from service
on 31st January, 2015. Post retirement, the father of the petitioner did not
vacate the said government accommodation. As per the rules, the father of
the petitioner was entitled to occupy the said quarter for a maximum period
of eight months after retirement i.e. upto the end of September, 2015.
3. The Directorate of Estates has, in the meanwhile, issued a notice to
the father of the petitioner for vacation of the quarter under the P.P. Act. The
petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an O.A. No.1354/2016 on the
ground that he has been appointed as an Auditor in the Defence Ministry and
has joined his duty on 31st December, 2015. Petitioner prayed therein that he
may be allowed to retain the same government accommodation based on his
having joined the Defence Ministry and the fact that he is also entitled to a
government quarter.
4. While it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not join his service
with the Defence Ministry within the stipulated period of eight months after
the retirement of his father, but the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the
ground that the proceedings under the P.P. Act are pending. This has led to
filing of the present writ petition.
5. Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents enters
appearance on advance copy.
6. Heard.
7. We may note that the proceedings under the P.P. Act have been
initiated against the father of the petitioner. Thus, in case the father of the
petitioner had approached the Tribunal, in our view, the Tribunal would
have had no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. However, the son of the
occupant (petitioner herein) has approached the Tribunal claiming his
independent right to the quarter in question.
8. We may note that the Tribunal has observed in the impugned order
that the petitioner has been appointed as an Auditor and joined his duty only
after the expiry of period of eight months, but none of the submissions of the
petitioner have been recorded in the said order and the O.A. has been
dismissed only on the ground that proceedings under the P.P. Act have been
initiated against the father of the petitioner.
9. While we do not wish to make any observations on the merits of the
matter with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to retain or occupy the
government quarter which was allotted to his father, but in our view the
Tribunal erred in dismissing the O.A. on the ground that the proceedings
under the P.P. Act are pending against the father of the petitioner.
10. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and
remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing of the O.A.
11. We make it clear that the pendency of the O.A. before the Tribunal
will not come in the way of the proceedings which are pending under the
P.P. Act being independent proceedings under the P.P. Act. The Tribunal
would decide the matter unaffected by any observations made by us while
disposing of this writ petition. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal
on 30th September, 2016.
12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
G.S.SISTANI
(JUDGE)
I.S.MEHTA
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
'dc'
