Delhi High Court
Hamendra Nath Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 12 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: April 12, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 3228/2008 & CM 29714/2016
HAMENDRA NATH SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla,
CGSC & Mr. Kamaldeep, Advocates for
respondent No.1
Mr. Bijoy Kumar Pradhan, Mr. Madhav Smita
Bora & Mr. Vineet Ranjan, Advocates for
respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
1. Upon retirement of petitioner on 31st August, 2006, he was
intimated about pensionary benefits by fourth respondent vide
Communication of 17th August, 2006 (Annexure-P-12). As per the
aforesaid Communication of 17th August, 2006 (Annexure-P-12),
`2,97,693/- was payable to petitioner as gratuity. According to petitioner,
a sum of `2,05,813/- has been deducted by fourth respondent from
petitioner's retiral dues.
2. Respondent-Union of India in its counter affidavit has asserted that
the deduction from the retiral dues of petitioner was made, as petitioner
was declared as unauthorized occupant by Directorate of Estate on 28th
September, 2004. As per aforesaid order of 28th September, 2004, the
allotment of General Pool Residential Accommodation to petitioner was
cancelled on account of unauthorized sub-letting of the said
accommodation and damages were imposed upon petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to
Estate Officer's order of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10) to submit
that the allegation levelled against petitioner of sub-letting the premises
allotted to him, does not stand proved and the matter was remanded back.
It is the case of petitioner that on 18th August, 2006, another official
accommodation was allotted to him vide Communication of 18th August,
2016 (Annexure-11).
4. The stand taken by respondent-Union of India in the counter
affidavit is that the Estate Officer under the Allotment of Government
Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963, is not vested with the
power to decide about sub-letting.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner points out that the order
of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10) of the Estate Officer, has not
been challenged by respondents and since it has attained finality,
therefore, respondents are precluded from deducting `2 lacs odd from the
gratuity payable to petitioner.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, I find that
the Cancellation Order of 28th September, 2004 (Annexure-I to the
counter affidavit) with regard to Government accommodation allotted to
petitioner, was appealable and infact, an appeal was filed by petitioner
before the Estate Officer, which was allowed vide order of 19th
December, 2005 (Annexure P-10), which has attained finality.
7. Vide order of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10) the Estate
Officer has held that sub-letting of the official residential accommodation
in question does not stand proved. In such a situation, reliance placed
upon the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi)
Rules, 1963 is of no avail as the cancellation order of 28th September,
2004 stands annulled vide order of 19th December, 2005. Thus, no
justification remains for deducting `2 lacs odd from the gratuity of
petitioner.
8. In view of the aforesaid, first respondent is directed to refund the
amount of `2,05,813/- deducted from petitioner's retiral benefits with
interest @ 6% per annum thereon, which shall be payable from January,
2006 till the date of refund of the deducted amount. Needful be done
within a period of six weeks, failing which interest @ 8% per annum
shall be payable by first respondent to petitioner from the date of default,
till the date of payment.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are
disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
APRIL 12, 2018
r/s
