Smt. Suchitra Goswami vs Union Of India
2017 Latest Caselaw 6572 Del

$~39
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 10282/2017 & C.M. Nos.41926-41928/2017

                                 Date of Decision: 20th November, 2017

         SMT. SUCHITRA GOSWAMI             ..... PETITIONER
                       Through Mr.Sonal Sinha, Adv.

                            versus

         UNION OF INDIA                         ..... RESPONDENT

                       Through         Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Adv. with
                                       Ms.Saakshi Agrawal, Adv. for
                                       R-1/UOI.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner,

assailing the order dated 9th October, 2017 passed by Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Before the

Tribunal, the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the order

dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the respondent/Directorate

of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development, whereby, on re-

examining her case in terms of an order dated 5th November,

2015, passed by the High Court in an earlier petition filed by her

(W.P.(C) No.10182/2015), her request for regularizing the

Government accommodation occupied by her at Kidwai Nagar, at

the time of her superannuation on 31st July, 2011, on the strength

of her being appointed on a contractual basis with NITI Aayog

w.e.f. 12th June, 2014, stood rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner belongs to the Central Secretariat Service and had

retired from the same Department on the post of a Joint Secretary.

While working in the said Department, she had been allotted a

Government accommodation bearing number D-II/233, Kidwai

Nagar (West), New Delhi. The extant rules permitted the

petitioner to retain the subject accommodation after her

superannuation, for a maximum period of eight months, on

payment of normal/enhanced licence fee, which period had

expired on 31st March, 2012. However, the petitioner failed to

vacate the said accommodation. As a result, the respondent

initiated eviction proceeding against her under the Public

Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

(hereinafter referred to as "PP Act") and subsequently, the Estate

Officer passed an eviction order dated 10th October, 2013, against

the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had soon

thereafter, filed an appeal before the District Judge, Patiala House,

New Delhi, and the same is stated to be pending adjudication.

Though no interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner in

the said proceedings, she has been continuing to occupy the

government accommodation after 10.10.2013, till date. After a

gap of two years and three months, reckoned from 31st March,

2012, on which date the maximum period available to the

petitioner for retaining the Government accommodation would

have expired, she secured re-employment as a Research Associate

in NITI Aayog on 11.06.2014, which contract was later on

extended up to 30th November, 2015. As per para 3(iii) of the

terms of engagement of the petitioner, issued by the NITI Aayog

on 11th June, 2014, her assignment as a Research Associate did not

carry any dearness allowance, residential telephone, transport

facility, residential accommodation, house rent allowance etc.

4. It is matter of record that the petitioner joined the services

of NITI Aayog on 12th June, 2014. There can, thus, be no doubt

about the fact that from 12th June, 2014 onwards, the petitioner

was well aware of the fact that she had not been granted any

residential accommodation by NITI Aayog. Despite that, she

continued to occupy the Government accommodation, without

any legal right. After a gap of one year reckoned from 11th June,

2014, the date on which the petitioner was issued an offer letter

for appointment by NITI Aayog, she submitted a representation to

the Ministry of Urban Development, seeking regularization of the

subject accommodation under the pool, on the claim that similarly

placed persons had been granted such a relief by the Directorate

of Estates.

5. Admittedly, vide order dated 15th July, 2015, the

representation made by the petitioner to consider her case for

regularization of the subject Government accommodation, was

turned down and she was called upon to deposit the outstanding

sum of Rs.13,39,999/-, on account of unauthorizedly occupying

the subject accommodation, apart from vacating the same

immediately. The petitioner neither vacated the subject

accommodation nor paid the entire amount as demanded by the

Directorate of Estates. Instead, she filed a writ petition in this

Court, registered as W.P.(C) No.10182/2015. In the said petition,

the petitioner prayed for regularization of the residential

accommodation under her occupation under the Planning pool, on

the plea that the order dated 15th July, 2015 issued by the

Directorate of Estates, had not dealt with the contentions raised

by her in her representation. The said order was quashed and set

aside vide order dated 30th October, 2015 passed by the Court in

the captioned petition with directions issued to the respondent to

decide the petitioner's representation afresh.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, after re-examining the case

of the petitioner, the respondent issued the order dated 16th

December, 2015, holding inter alia that her case for regularization

was not covered under the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the

petitioner filed a second petition in this Court, registered as

W.P.(C) No.12263/2015 wherein while issuing notice on 14th

January, 2016, the Court had initially passed an interim order,

directing the respondent to maintain status quo with regard to the

subject accommodation. The said petition was finally disposed of

vide order dated 6th January, 2017 with liberty granted to the

petitioner to withdraw the same and approach the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench for appropriate relief.

Simultaneously, the interim order passed in favour of the

petitioner on 14th January, 2016, was vacated.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an O.A before the Central

Administrative Tribunal, registered as O.A No.393/2017. The said

O.A. has been dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable on

the ground that the relief prayed for in the petition, has no nexus

with the service conditions of the petitioner, within the meaning

of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. In other

words, the petitioner ought to have pursued her remedy against

the rejection order dated 16.12.2015, elsewhere.

8. As noted above, the Eviction Order dated 10th October, 2013

passed by the Estate Officer, has already been assailed by the

petitioner by filing an appeal and the same is pending adjudication

before the appellate authority i.e. District Judge, Patiala House,

New Delhi. We are informed that the said appeal is listed for

arguments today itself.

9. Counsel for the petitioner states that it was the duty of NITI

Aayog to have recommended allotment of an accommodation in

favour of the petitioner, particularly when five flats had been

allotted to the Planning Commission (now, NITI Aayog) for its

employees and as per the averment made by the petitioner in WP

(C) No.12263/2015, they were lying vacant.

10. It is noteworthy that despite the said allegations levelled by

the petitioner against NITI Aayog, claiming alleged failure on its

part to recommend her name to the Directorate of Estates, for

allotment of an accommodation, which was purportedly lying

vacant in the Planning Commission pool, the petitioner elected not

to implead Planning Commission as a party in either of the two

writ petitions filed by her before this Court. Even when the

second petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with liberty

granted to her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal

and pursuant thereto, she had filed OA No.393/2017, for reasons

best known to her, she still did not elect to implead the Planning

Commission as a co-respondent. In all the three proceedings, the

petitioner impleaded only respondent/Directorate of Estate,

Ministry of Urban Development, Union of India as a respondent.

11. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner's contract with

the Planning Commission had expired as long back as in

November, 2015 whereafter, there was no justification

whatsoever for the petitioner to have continued occupying the

Government accommodation. But she did. Even as of now, she is

continuing to do so. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner is a

gross abuse of the process of the Court. Under the garb of

approaching one court after another in succession, the petitioner

has been willy-nilly hanging on to the subject premises, without

any relief granted to her by any forum including the District Judge

who is ceased of the appeal preferred by her against the eviction

order passed by the Estate Officer, as long back as on 10th October,

2013, except for the period from 14th January, 2016 to 6th January,

2017, when a status quo order was operating in her favour.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent states that as on date,

the amount liable to be paid by the petitioner towards market rent

has mounted to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (approx). It is the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/-(approx) has been deposited by the petitioner with

the respondent, whereafter no demand has been raised on her and

therefore, she cannot be blamed for not depositing any further

amounts towards market rent.

13. We are compelled to comment adversely on the blatant

conduct of the petitioner who has left no stone unturned to retain

the Government accommodation which she had no right to occupy

after superannuating on 31st July, 2011. At best, the petitioner

could have retained the subject premises for a period of eight

months reckoned from 31st July, 2011, that had expired as long

back as on 31st March, 2012. By now, over five and a half years

have expired but the petitioner has brazenly continued to occupy

the subject accommodation and that too when as on date, she is

admittedly not holding any Government assignment. Further, she

has not deposited the market rent. It is least expected of the

petitioner, who had retired at a responsible post of a Joint

Secretary in the Government to have resorted to such tactics to

unauthorizedly occupy government accommodation. The said

conduct needs to be condemned in the strongest terms.

14. In the above facts and circumstances, we see no reason to

interfere in the impugned order. Even otherwise, having

examined the case of the petitioner on merits, we do not find any

reason to grant any relief to her on the strength of a specious plea

that there was pool accommodation available with NITI Aayog

which the respondent/Directorate of Estates ought to have

allotted to her, when no such recommendation was ever made in

her favour by the NITI Aayog. Even otherwise, it is an undisputed

position that NITI Aayog did not change the terms and conditions

of appointment of the petitioner which remained the same, as set

down in the letter dated 11th June, 2014, issued to her and her

reemployment came to an end on 30.11.2015.

15. The present petition is accordingly dismissed in limine, as

devoid of merits with costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the

petitioner 50% of the said costs shall be deposited by the

petitioner with the Delhi Legal Services Authority and the balance

amount, paid to the respondent. In case the petitioner does not

pay the costs, then the same shall be recovered from her as

`Arrears of Land Revenue'.

16. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms

alongwith all pending applications.

(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE

(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE NOVEMBER 20, 2017/aa