Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Anr. vs Himmat Singh Chauhan on 22 January, 2019
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 22.01.2019
% W.P.(C.) No. 638/2019
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Adv.
versus
HIMMAT SINGH CHAUHAN .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
A.K.CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has come to be preferred by the petitioners seeking to
set aside the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, in short, 'CAT', whereby, the OA No.3140/2016
filed by the respondent for quashing the communication/order dated
12.05.2016, whereby, the allotment of Govt. accommodation of the
respondent was cancelled and the consequential orders that came to be
passed by the petitioners, was allowed.
2. Concisely, the relevant facts are that the respondent, during the course
of his employment with the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate
Change as Steno Gr.-D, was allotted Qtr. No. 101, Block-L, Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi in short, 'the subject quarter', w.e.f. 30.09.1991. He joined
Airport Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) on deputation w.e.f.
14.02.2014. Vide the impugned communication dated 12.05.2016, the
petitioners cancelled the allotment of the subject quarter in favour of the
respondent w.e.f. 12.05.2014 and claimed damages @ `14,800/- p.m.,
followed with the demand of damages of `3,48,994/- vide communication
dated 20.05.2016. On this, the respondent made a representation dated
02.06.2016 seeking regularisation of the allotment of the subject quarter till
the time of his deputation with AERA, which was to end on 13.02.2017.
Having made such representation, the respondent on his own request, got
repatriated vide office order dated 21.06.2016 issued by AERA and so
joined his parent department. The representation made by the respondent
against cancellation of the allotment of the subject quarter however came to
be rejected and communicated vide letter dated 05.07.2016 of the
petitioners. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent approached CAT by way of
OA No.3140/2016, in which, the impugned order has come to be passed.
3. Pertinently, the petitioners assail the impugned order on two counts.
Firstly, CAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the subject OA inasmuch as
according to the petitioners, the subject dispute fell within the realm of the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, in short
'the PP Act'. Secondly, AERA was established on 12.05.2009 and as per
OM No.12035/14/92/Pol II dated 12.10.2000, the officers posted with
PSUs/Statutory/Autonomous bodies etc. on deputation basis, at the time of
their initial constitution could retain the General Pool Accommodation for a
period of five years only and in view of the fact that such period of five
years had come to an end in the case of AERA, the respondent could not
retain the subject quarter after 11.05.2014. In support of such submissions,
reliance is placed upon Union of India vs. Rasila Ram & Ors., (2001) 10
SCC 623.
4. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the subject matter, we
do not find any merit in either of the contentions strenuously made on behalf
of the petitioners.
5. Allotment of a Govt. accommodation is made as a sequel to
employment of the Govt. servant, though, it is regulated by the norms
stipulated therefor. In other words, such allotment is a consequence of the
service and therefore, we do not see any reason as to why the allotment of a
Govt. accommodation, could not be a matter, which fell within the definition
of "service matters" as defined under Section 3(q)(v) of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985 and thereby, entertainable by CAT. Here, we may only
hasten to add that the allotment and the cancellation of a Govt.
accommodation is a subject, which is independent and distinct from the
eviction proceedings under the PP Act. In view thereof, reliance placed upon
Rasila Ram's case (supra) is misconceived inasmuch as, in that case, the
order passed by the Competent Authority under the PP Act had come to be
assailed before CAT and in that context, the Supreme Court held that an
order passed by the Competent Authority under the PP Act cannot be
assailed before CAT. In the case in hand however, the subject matter is of
consideration of valid cancellation of the allotment and not any order passed
by the Estate Officer under the provisions of the PP Act. Contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioners to the contrary is therefore rejected.
6. As regards the plea of the petitioners that AERA having been
established on 12.05.2009, the officers posted with it on deputation basis,
were not entitled to retain the Govt. accommodation beyond 11.05.2014, we
consider, it is really not even required to be gone into in the case in hand, for
the simple reason that the cancellation of the allotment cannot be made
throwing all the canons of the principles of natural justice and the law to
winds. It is to be understood that the petitioner was a lawful occupant on a
valid allotment of the subject quarter. In the event, the petitioner had
violated any of the terms and conditions of allotment, he should, at least,
been provided with an opportunity to explain the alleged violation. It is more
so expected of the petitioner, which is a State by itself. Not only that, it is
unconscionable that the cancellation could be pre-dated w.e.f. 12.05.2014
with the issuance of the cancellation letter dated 12.05.2016 and that too, as
said earlier, even without affording an opportunity to show cause. This
action of the petitioners, we are of the considered view, is not sustainable,
seen from any angle.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any reason to interfere with
the impugned order. Petition is meritless and is dismissed. No order as to
costs.
A.K.CHAWLA, J.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
JANUARY 22, 2019
rc
