Delhi High Court
Nawal Kishore Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 2018
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 339/2018
Date of decision: 31st July, 2018.
NAWAL KISHORE YADAV ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr.
Bibhash Kumar, Advocate for UOI/R-1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
CM. No. 30401/2018
Learned counsels for the parties state that they would like to argue the
appeal itself on merits. We take the statement on record and we have taken
up the appeal for hearing.
LPA 339/2018
1. The appellant is an inspector in Border Security Force.
2. The appellant, on being posted with the National Security Guard
Headquarters at Palam, New Delhi, was allotted General Pool Residential
Accomodation House No. C-105, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi, vide allotment
letter dated 31st December 2014.
3. Subsequently, on 6th May, 2015, the appellant was transferred and
posted to Security Headquarter BSF at Silchar in Assam. In terms of the
extent guidelines, the appellant was allowed to retain the government
accommodation at Delhi despite being transferred to Silchar till 30th June,
2018.
4. However, in view of the Re-Development Scheme for Sarojini Nagar,
the respondents had directed the appellant to vacate the accommodation by
1st September, 2017. It was stated that there was a change in policy and
hence the appellant cannot be allowed to occupy the government
accommodation in Delhi.
5. The appellant had thereupon filed Writ Petition (C) No. 7497/2017
which was disposed of, directing that the appellant should be given at least a
period of three months to vacate the quarter/government accommodation,
the same period as given to officers who demit their office. However,
keeping in view the urgency and as government accommodation was to be
demolished, the appellant was granted time to vacate the accommodation till
30th September, 2017 without levy of damages and penal charges.
6. The appellant had thereupon preferred LPA No. 627/2017, which was
disposed of on 20th September, 2017. The last two paragraphs of the said
decision read as under:-
"7. The Court has considered the entirety of
circumstances. It is an undisputed fact that the allotment
to the appellant/petitioner was extended upto 30.06.2018.
This is based upon the respondents' understanding that
such accommodation should be retained by a person sent
to the Northeast on posting for three years. Undoubtedly,
the exigencies of redevelopment required demolition of
the flats. At the same time, the Central Government in
this instance, in our opinion, should not have faulted on
its commitment to house its employee, who is now posted
in a forward/border area, and given him such short notice
for vacating his house. Given that the period granted is
even as on date a short one, a direction is issued to the
Central Government (which the counsel has agreed to
comply with) to continue the allotment till 30th April,
2018, with a suitable alternative flat. The
appellant/petitioner shall be handed over allotment and
possession of such suitable alternative flat within 15 days
from today. The appellant/petitioner shall also furnish an
undertaking to vacate such allotted quarter latest by 30th
April, 2018. The undertaking shall be filed within a week
before this Court with a copy to the respondents.
8. The appeal is allowed in above terms."
The aforesaid order refers to the prayer made by the appellant, which
was considered sympathetically. By consent and concession recorded, the
appellant was permitted to handover the government accommodation latest
by 30th April, 2018 and to furnish an undertaking to the said effect, which
was furnished.
7. The appellant has not vacated the government accommodation in
terms of the undertaking and the order passed.
8. The appellant had filed an application seeking impleadment in Writ
Petition (C) No. 5476/2018, Bijaya Kumar Pradhan and Others versus
Union of India and Others. It was pleaded that the case of the appellant
was similarly placed as the writ petitioners therein. We may note that the
said writ petitioners by order dated 29th May, 2018 have been granted
interim protection against the coercive action in respect of the government
accommodation allotted to them till the next date of hearing. However,
application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge
vide order dated 1st June, 2018. This order of dismissal is challenged in the
present appeal.
9. The contention of the appellant is that some other similarly situated
persons had challenged the order dated 20th September, 2017 in LPA No.
627/2017 before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No. 14198/2018, which was not entertained giving liberty to the said persons
to approach the High Court. For this purpose, they were granted protection
for two weeks. Thereupon these persons have filed WP(C) No. 5476/2018
and stay order has been passed.
10. We do not think that the appellant should be allowed to withdraw and
not abide by the undertaking and commitment given to the Court. Appellant
would be bound by the consent order and undertaking. He should have
vacated the government accommodation by 30th April, 2018. The appellant
had filed an application in LPA No. 627/2018 and time for vacation was
extended up to 31st May, 2018. In view of the undertaking given by the
appellant, his status cannot be compared and is not similar to the persons
who have filed Writ Petition (C) No. 5476/2018. Even otherwise, the date
30th June, 2018 for which the allotment was made to the appellant has come
to an end.
11. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JULY 31, 2018
MR
