N K Grover & Anr. vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited & ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2491 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                               Date of decision:18th May, 2017

+       W.P.(C) 8838/2014, CM No. 20276/2014
        N K GROVER & ANR.
                                                                 ..... Petitioner
                               Through:      Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, Adv. with
                                             Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Adv.

                               versus

        BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LIMITED & ANR.
                                                 ..... Respondent
                    Through: Mr. J.C. Seth, Adv.


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

following prayers:-

"In the circumstances, it is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:- i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or orders, direction or directions to the respondents to restore the medical facilities which has been withheld from 01.04.2014 and restore the same with immediate effect in respect of petitioners in the interest of justice. ii. Pass such other or further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Some of the relevant facts are, the petitioner No.1 retired as

General Technician on August 24, 2005 and petitioner No.2 retired as

Senior Technician on July 24, 2006 from BHEL the respondents herein.

After retirement, the petitioners were entitled to continue with the

medical facilities for themselves and their family Members dependant on

them by depositing half of the basic salary with the respondents and pay

Rs.50/- annually for renewal of the medical card.

3. It is their case, that they have been getting medical facilities

continuously till March 31, 2014, but the same have been withheld w.e.f.

April 01, 2014. It is in this background, the present petition has been

filed.

4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioners were allotted

flats while in service and as they vacated the flats on August 28, 2009 and

August 04, 2009 respectively, long after retirement and not paid the dues

for occupying the flats and in terms of the BHEL Retired Employees

Contributory Health Scheme, a defaulter in payment of dues of BHEL,

the Medical facilities can be withdrawn.

5. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners were not unauthorized occupants in view of the

judgment of this Court in the case of Varishth Nagrik Kalyan Parishad

and others v. BHEL and others W.P.(C) No. 8236/2008 decided on

November 21, 2008, which petition was filed by the retired employees of

BHEL seeking directions to the respondents to grant them two years

further time for vacating the company's accommodation in their

possession. The petition was disposed of by the Court by granting nine

months time for vacating the company's accommodation in their

possession subject to an undertaking, to be filed by the Members of the

Union that they shall vacate the company's accommodation in their

possession by August 31, 2009. According to him, thereafter an

application being CM No. 404/2009 was filed in that writ petition by the

respondents seeking direction against the Members of the Union that they

should give an undertaking to pay market rent as per applicable Rules.

The said prayer in the application was rejected by the Court. He would

state, the proceedings initiated before the Estate Officer by the

respondents, which was decided on January 28, 2010, the Estate Officer

has wrongly held the petitioner No.1 to be unauthorized occupant when

there is already a direction of this Court to extend the occupation of the

accommodation till August 31, 2009. He also draws my attention to the

bills raised by the respondents from time to time, to contend the same is

unjustified and the petitioners are at the most liable to pay the normal rent

and not the damages and the impugned action need to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. J.C. Seth learned counsel for the

respondents would submit that the petitioners cannot take advantage of

their own wrong, inasmuch as they continue to occupy the

accommodation given to them and not vacate the same. He states, that

this Court has in the order dated November 21, 2008 in W.P.(C)

8236/2008 never restrained the respondents from claiming the

damages/market rent. The limited relief granted by this Court was only to

extent the date of vacation of the accommodation by August 31, 2009.

According to him, this Court had also observed that the Members of the

Union shall continue to pay rent, water and electricity charges for the

period they would retain the company's accommodation during this

extended period. That apart, the Court has also held that the respondents

are given liberty to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against the

Members of the petitioner Union for recovery of any amount that may be

legally recoverable from them as per applicable Rules and law on the

subject. He also states that no doubt, the application filed by the

respondents being CM No.404/2009 for a direction to the Members of the

Union that they should give an undertaking to pay market rent was

rejected but the same was on the ground such directions cannot be given

in a disposed of writ petition. He states, this Court while deciding the

application also referred to that part of the order dated November 21,

2008, which held that the respondents were given liberty to initiate

appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of the amount of the premises

in their occupation as per applicable Rules.

7. That apart, this Court has also held that any grievance regarding

payment of rent/licence fee in respect of the premises in occupation by

the Members of the Union, the respondents shall be at liberty to take

appropriate proceedings for recovery of the difference as per liberty

granted vide order dated November 21, 2008. He states, the Estate

Officer has rightly quantified the amount in the proceedings. According

to him, the claim of the respondents at the relevant time against the

petitioners was of Rs.1,01,020/- and 64,668/- resepctively. He concedes

to the submission made by Mr. Srivastava that the petitioner No.2 has

since paid the amount claimed by the respondents.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issue arises for

consideration is whether the respondents could have withdrawn the

Medical Facilities of the petitioners on account of non-payment of the

licence fee for continued occupation of the accommodation granted to

them. The plea of Mr. Srivastava, relying on the order dated November

21, 2008 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8236/2008 filed by the Union of

the retired employees, is not appealing to this Court as in the said order,

this Court while extending the vacation of the accommodation has not

restrained the respondents from claiming the licence fee in accordance

with the Rules. Rather, the Court has granted liberty to the respondents to

initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against the Members of the

petitioner Union for recovery of any amount that may be legally

recoverable from them as per applicable Rules and Law on the subject.

In view of the clear directions, which have been reiterated by this Court

in its order dated April 21, 2009 while deciding CM No. 404/2009 filed

by the respondents, would leave no doubt that the respondents were

within their rights to claim the licence fee as per the applicable Rules and

Law on the subject. It is not the case of the petitioners that the Rules does

not permit the claim of licence fee on market rent.

9. Insofar as the submission of Mr. Srivastava that the Estate Officer

has held that the petitioners are unauthorized occupants is untenable is

concerned, the said finding has no bearing insofar as the issue which falls

for consideration which has been already noted above. Even if the

continuance of the petitioners in the accommodation in view of the order

of the Court, is justified, suffice to state, that the Estate Officer, was also

justified in computing the amount of licence fee as per the applicable

Rules and the Law on the subject and there was no restraint order in that

regard. The said order cannot be faulted.

10. The amounts having been quantified were required to be paid by

the petitioners. Surely, the non-payment of the amounts has a particular

consequence under the provisions of the BHEL Retired Employees

Contributory Health Scheme and also in terms of corporate circulate

dated June 5, 2012 as modified vide circular dated February 16, 2013

(pages 56 and 57 of the paper book).

11. In view of my discussion above, the present petition is devoid of

merit. The same is dismissed.

CM No. 20276/2014

Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MAY 18, 2017/ak