Pala Singh Tanck v. UOI and Ors

ORDER 1L01.2012

¶1Refusal to regularizeallotmentof GovernmentAccommodation No.401 in Minto Road Hostel, New Delhi in the name of the petitioner by virtue of his employment with the Government as Additional StatisticalAdvisor,is assailedby invokingArticle226 of Constitutionof India. ImpugnedCommunicationof 12"^ November,2009 (ArmexureP-1) disclosesthat since the petitionerupon his re-postingback to Delhi had not joinedwithinthe permissibletime of one year from the date of his being relieved from Delhi, therefore, for the period beyond eight months, petitionerwas charged licence fee of the accommodationin question at the market rent and was asked to vacate this Government Accommodation forthwith. Petitioner's request for regularization of aforesaid GovernmentAccommodationwas specificallydeclinedby the Respondentvide Communicationof22"''February,2010 (AnnexureP-2) beingimpermissibleunderthe relevantAllotmentRules.

¶2Aforesaid Communication Armexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 are assailed being arbitraiy and discriminatory,alleging that Respondents ~ have been exercising their power of regularizing the Government accommodationon re-postingof officers even beyond one year of the transfer in other cases by invoking their power of relaxation. Few instances are cited in paragraph no: 5 (xiv) of the writ petition to highlightthat the Respondentsare adoptinga policyof pick and choose. Petitionerclaims parity with similarlyplaced person, i.e., Mi-.Sarvesh Kumar and relies upon RTI information of 3''' December, 2010 (AnnexureP-9) to substantiatehis claim.

¶3Reliance has been also placed by the petitioner's counsel upon precedents(AnnexureP-10) whereby directionshave been issued by a coordinate Bench of Court to regularize the Govermnent Accommodation in favour of similarly situated persons.

¶4Accordingto the petitioner,quashingofthe EvictionOrderofl" June, 2010 (AnnexureP-3) passed by the Estate Officerupheld by the AppellateAuthorityvide impugnedorder of 25^*^ October, 2010 is the consequentialreliefwhich is soughtin this petitionby invokingArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the Appellate Authority in the impugnedorderof 25^'' October,2010 has refusedto go into the plea of discriminationin proceedingsunder the Public Premises (Eviction of UnauthorisedOccupants)Act, 1971, therefore,in this writ petition,the main relief sought is of quashing the refusal to regularize petitioner's stay inthis GovernmentAccommodationbeing arbitrary.

¶5After having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugnedCommunication(Ex.P-2), impugned order of 25"" October,2010 and materialon record,in the first instance,I proceed to deal with the main relief sought in this petition.

¶6Petitioner's applicationseeking regularizationof his stay in this Government Accommodation is of 1'^ June, 2000, and the subsequent Page2 application for the same relief made by the petitioner to the first Respondentis of6"^ April,2010. Even afterpassingofEvictionOrderof 1stJune, 2010 (AnnexureP-3),petitionerhad madeRepresentationof 9"^ December, 2010 to the Respondents specifically seeking parity with Mr.SarveshKumar by relying uponthe RTI information (AnnexureP-9).

¶7A bare perusal of the RTI information (Annexure P-9) reveals that it was the medical groundwhichhad persuadedthe Respondentsto relax the relevant Allotment Rules in extending the stay of Government Official - Mr.Sarvesh Kumar for the period of six months and since re-postingof Mr.SarveshKumarwas withinfive months,thereforehis stay in the Government Accommodation was regularized. The relevant Allotment Rules governing the case of the petitioner would be the Office Memorandum of 31^^ July, 2000 providing for regularization of allotmentofresidences on re-posting at the last place ofposting, and not the Office Memorandum of lO'*' August, 2010 on the afore-noted subject.However,OfficeMemorandumof 31"'July, 2000 on the subject mandates that allotment of Government accommodation can be •n, regularized upon re-posting on payment of double of the normal licence fee within the permissible period of one year. For the period of over stay beyond one year, the concerned Government official becomes unauthorized occupant and is thus liable to be evicted and to pay damages for the over stay i.e., license fee at the market rent. No doubt, as per Allotment Rule SR 317-B-25 of the Respondent, the Government may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, relax all or any of the provisions of the Rules of allotment of Government Accommodation in case of any Officer or residence or Class of Officers or type of residences.

¶8Now it becomes relevant to have a look at petitioner's Application of 1^' June, 2000 seeking regularization of his stay in this Government W.P. (C)No.253/2011 Page3 Accommodation.A bare perusal of the aforesaidApphcation revealsthat the petitioner had sought to justify his over stay in this Government Accommodation by pleading that his children were studying in Delhi and their academic study was completed in June, 2007 and that his wife was also in Government Service in Delhi and was not availing of House Rent Allowance and the petitioner had paid the license fee for this Government Accommodation and that petitioner is in correspondence with the Respondents.Even in the subsequentApplicationof 6^'' April, ^ 2010 seeking regularization of his stay in Govermnent Accommodation,petitionerhad not pleaded any new fact entitlinghim to seek relaxation of AllotmentRules for the period of his over stay beyond one year in this Government Accommodation.

¶9After passing of the Eviction Order of 1st June, 2010 (Annexure P-3) by the Estate Officer, petitioner in the Representationof 9"" December, 2010 had raised the plea of discrimination and had sought parity with aforesaid Mr.Sarvesh Kumar by relying upon RTI information (Armexure P-9) but had not brought out any new fact which ^ could have entitled the petitioner to claim relaxation of Allotment Rule SR317-B-25.

¶10As already noted above, the relaxation granted to Mr.Sarvesh Kumar, as is evident from the RTI information (Annexure P-9), is on the medical ground and so, the petitioner cannot claim parity with aforesaid Mr.Sarvesh Kumar as no justifiable ground has been put forth by the petitioner entitling him to seek the relaxation of Allotment Rule SR 317-B-25. In this view of the matter, reliance placed by the petitioner's counsel upon the precedents (Annexure P-10) is of no avail. It is so said, because it stands revealed from the Orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3163/2003 titled as J.P.S.Rana vs. Union of India & Ors., decided on September, 2008; W.P.(C) No.3257/2003 Page 4 titled as Banveer Singh Panwar V5 UOI & Ors., decided on 1^ September,2008 and in W.P.(C)No.3278/2003titledasRamKumar vs. UOI& Ors., decidedon T' September,2010 that uponthe concessionof Respondent'scounsel, directionsfor regularizationof the Government Accommodation in favour of the aforesaid persons was passed. Therefore,aforesaidorderscannotbe treatedas precedentsapplicableto the case of the petitioner herein.

¶11Rehance place by petitioner's counsel upon decision in ^ Singh V5. UOI Ors., 2009 (159) DLT 596 is ofno avail as Allotment Rules were not subject matter of considerationtherein and direction issued was to regularizeas per applicableRules. In the short synopsis filed by the petitioner,apartfrom the ListofDates,the legalsubmissions advanced are of non-regularizationof Government Accommodation occupied by the petitionerbeing arbitrary and discriminatoryand this aspect has been alreadydealt with, hereinabove.Referencemade to the decisionin R.D.Sagar vs. Union ofIndiia, 1998 (47)DRJ(DB) 783 by the petitioneris out ofcontextas inthe aforesaiddecisiondirectiontore- ^ consider,while exercisingdiscretionunder SR 317-B-25 was issuedin view of the fact that alternate Accommodation was not made available to the petitioneratthe transferredplaced.So far as referenceto the decision of this Court in Union of India V5. Gulam Nabi Azad, 41 (1990) DLT 115 is concerned, it is found that the same is of no relevance to the case in hand. Nothing else was urgedby the petitioner's counselto show as to how the impugnedorderof22"^^ February,2010 (AnnexureP-2) refusing regularization of petitioner's over stay in Government Accommodation is arbitrary or discriminatory. Since petitioner has failed to make out plausibleground for relaxingthe relevantAllotment Rules of the year 2000 and to claim parity with aforesaidMr.Sarvesh Kumar, therefore refusal to regularizethe petitioner's over stay in this Government Accommodation vide Annexure P-2 is held to be justified. PageS

¶12As there is no challenge to the relevant Allotment Rules, i.e., Office Memorandum of 3V July, 2000, and upon finding that the petitioneris not entitledto the mainrelief,no fault can be foundwiththe impugned order of 25th October, 2010 of the Appellate Authority holding that the plea of discrimination cannot be gone into in proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Finding of the Appellate Authority of cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner being in consonance with the Allotment Rules is well justified in law and it calls for no interferencewhile invokingjurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as there is no patent or palpable error in the impugnedorderof25th October,2010 ofthe AppellateAuthority.

¶13In the lightofthe aforesaidnarration,this petitionfails onboththe counts, i.e., no case is made out for invokingjurisdicfion of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India to assail the Order (Annexure P-2) refusing to regularize petitioner's over stay in this Government Accommodation and challenge to the Eviction Order of 1st June, 2010 ^ (Annexure P-3) and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority upholdingit, beingwithoutsubstance,thus failingto make out a case to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶14This petition is accordinglydismissed with no orders as to costs. Consequently, pending application also stands disposed of as infi-uctuous. JIL GAUR) JUDGE January 11, 2012 pkb W.P.(C)No.253/2011 Page6

V- + % HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI Reserved on : January 05, 2012 Pronounced on : January 11, 2012 C.M. Appl. No. 459/2011 % PALA SINGH TANCK ... Petitioner Through: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr.SachinDatta,CGSC andMr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR %