Delhi High Court
Newhilla K Marak vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 27th November, 2018
+ LPA 653/2018, CAV 1083/2018, CM Nos. 49045-49048/2018
NEWHILLA K MARAK ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. with
Mr. Ajoy Kr. Ghosh, Ms. Upma
Shrivastava & Mr. Abhay Kant
Mishra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, CGSC for R-1 &
R-2
Ms. Aprajita mukherjee, Adv. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CAV 1083/2018
Learned counsel for the caveator has put in appearance.
Caveat stands discharged.
CM No. 49047/2018
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM No. 49045/2018 (delay of 18 days in filing the appeal)
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 18 days in
filing the appeal stands condoned. Application stands disposed of.
LPA 653/2018
1. The challenge in the appeal is to the order dated September 25,
2018 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant. The prayer in the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge was for a direction against the Resident Commissioner,
Government of Meghalaya to allow the appellant to stay in Qtr. No. 1,
Grade-III, Meghalaya House, 9, APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi till
her retirement from her service with the respondent No.3 and allot the
same in the name of the appellant. A further relief was prayed for, for
quashing of the show cause notice dated January 13, 2017 asking the
appellant to show cause why order of eviction should not be made
against her.
2. The facts as noted from the record are, the husband of the
appellant was also in the employment of respondent No.3 on the post of
UDA (Assistant)-cum-Accountant and was allotted the aforesaid quarter
being the holder of Grade-III post. The appellant is employed with the
respondent No.3 on the post of Cleaner and was residing with her
husband and children in the said quarter. The husband of the appellant
died on January 01, 2005. The appellant along with her children,
however continued to reside in the same quarter. The respondent No.3
allotted Qtr. No. 17 to the appellant as per Grade-IV post held by her.
The appellant did not shift into the same and was subsequently allotted
Qtr. No.1 but again as per Grade-IV post. The appellant continued to
represent to the respondent No.3 for permission to continue residing in
the same Grade-III quarter.
3. On May 01, 2015, she filed a suit against the respondent No.3 to
restrain the respondent No.3 from evicting her from the quarter in her
occupation and for mandatory injunction and for a direction to the
respondent No.3 to allot the quarter earlier allotted in the name of her
husband, in her favour. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated
July 30, 2018 holding that the appellant was not entitled to retain the
Grade-III quarter in her occupation and that the Civil Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 14 of the Meghalaya
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1980. It is
in this background, the writ petition was filed before the learned Single
Judge.
4. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was
that she was entitled to retain the said quarter. She relied upon a Press
Brief Note with the subject "New Plinth Area Norms-for General Pool
Residential Accommodation (GPRA) to be constructed for Central
Govt. Employees and its applicability to all Govt. Departments", to
contend that as per the Press Brief Note and her Grade Pay / Fixed Pay,
she is entitled to a quarter having unit area of 40.80 sq. mtrs and the
quarter in occupation of the appellant has unit area of 33 sq. mtrs. The
learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon a written statement
filed by the respondent No.3 to contend that the respondent no.3
admitted that the Press Brief Note shall be applicable to the employees
in the Meghalaya Government. But he could not file the said written
statement before the learned Single Judge. As such, the learned Single
Judge did not take any cognizance of such a statement. Even otherwise,
the learned Single Judge was of the view that the Press Brief Note was
with respect to 'to be constructed accommodation' and not for existing
accommodation.
5. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant was that similarly placed persons were permitted to occupy
similar quarters, which is in occupation of the appellant. The appellant
did not give any particulars in support of the said contention. The said
plea was also rejected.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Qtr. No. 1,
Grade-III, Meghalaya House, 9, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi
allotted to her husband, is a Type-I quarter, which was much below his
entitlement but he accepted the same because of his poor leg condition
and inability to travel long distance. He also states that since the
appellant is also entitled to a Type-I quarter, she should be allowed to
continue in the same Type-I quarter allotted to her husband. He has
drawn our attention to page 104 of the paper book in this regard.
7. We are unable to agree with the said submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that in the
communication dated April 20, 2015 of the Public Information Officer
(page 98 of the paper book), the following has been stated:-
"Note- Please see page 4 (highlighted) description of
quarter No. 1/Grade III defined as Type II quarter in
Meghalaya House, 9, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam road, New
Delhi."
8. The aforesaid position is also reflected from page 102 (Sr. No.46
related to the appellant) of the paper book, which we reproduce as
under:-
Sl. Employee Desig Grade Basic Rule Entit Quarter Type of Date Details Curr Initi License Date
No. Name nation Pay of applicable led allotted Quarter of of ent al fee
Emplo for for Allotted Allot Lice Lice deduct of
yee allotment of Quar ment the nse nse ed at deduction
Last ter allotte fee fee present
drawn staff Type d at
on Quarters at Quarte of present
Febru Meghalaya r the rate
ary House, New allott
2015 Delhi ed of
Quar license
ter fee
XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX
46. Smt. Clean IV 8280 -do- Type Yes Type-I 18.07. -do- 220 110 220 01.01.20
Nehwilla er + GP -I 2013 Presen 15 Vide
K. Marak 1800 tly office
occupy order
ing RCE.4
Qtr. PT.(II/10
No. 1, /224
Type II dated
11.11.20
XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX
9. The aforesaid clearly demonstrates that the quarter No.1, Grade-
III Meghalaya House was declared as Type-II. In other words, the
husband of the appellant was allotted Type-II quarter, which is not the
entitlement of the appellant. Her entitlement is Type-I.
10. On a specific query, whether he has placed on record the
allotment letter of the quarter being No. 1, Grade-III, Meghalaya House,
9, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi, made to the husband of the
appellant, the answer was in the negative.
11. Noting the aforesaid position and the fact that the learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 has stated that the appellant has been
allotted Qtr. No. 17 as per her entitlement / eligibility within the
Meghalaya House itself and she shall not be shifted out, we are of the
view the final conclusion of the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order dismissing the writ petition is justified.
12. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal. The
same is dismissed. No costs.
CM No. 49046/2018( for permission to file additional
documents) & CM No. 49048/2018 (for stay)
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 27, 2018/ak
