AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The current O.A. has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"(a) Allow the Original Application filed by the Applicant and quash the impugned order No. CIT(Admn)/Infra/I-527/2015-16/11250 dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Respondent No.2.
(b) The respondents be directed to regularize the flat being H.No. 335, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura, New Delhi in the name of the Applicant.
(c) The respondents be directed to charge normal licence fees from the Applicant for the period w.e.f. from 10.6.2006 to 31.07.2015.
(d) Pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case."
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Government Flat No. 527/I, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura, New Delhi was allotted to late Sh. Ishwar Chand, father of the applicant on 23.04.1992, who expired on 10.06.2006. As per Rules, retention of the flat was allowed to the family of the deceased on payment of normal license fee upto 09.06.2007 i.e. for one year. On 17.06.2011, a show cause notice u/s 4(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), Act, 1971 was issued for eviction of the flat.
The applicant states that after the death of his father (the deceased employee), on 12.03.2015 he joined the department on compassionate ground as Multi Tasking Staff. On 10.04.2015, the applicant made a request to transfer the quarter allotted to his father in his name. On 24.07.2015, a fresh notice u/s 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to the applicant directing him to surrender the flat and pay license fee dues of Rs. 4,76,194/- for unauthorized occupation of the flat as per rules. In response to this notice, the applicant represented through letter dated 11.08.2015 requesting to charge license fee dues as per government rates and to recover the same in monthly installments from his salary. On 18/21.09.2015, respondent No.3 passed an order u/s 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 to vacate the said premises within 15 days from the date of this order and also to pay the outstanding dues, failing which he will be liable to be evicted from the said premises in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. On 23.09.2015, the applicant made a representation to the respondents to stay the eviction proceedings. He submitted that after his joining the department on 12.03.2015, the respondents are deducting HRA amount from his salary, due to which he was under the impression that the respondents would regularize the government flat allotted to his father, which has not been done. On 23.12.2015, the respondents issued an order, rejecting his request for stay of eviction proceedings, and he was directed to vacate the flat by 15.01.2016.
In the counter, the respondents state that no request for retention of the government flat was received by them from the family of the deceased who are in unauthorized occupation of the flat since 09.06.2007 till date. A show cause notice dated 17.06.2011 was issued to the family under Section-4(1) of Public Premises Act, 1971, followed by Eviction Order u/s 5(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 dated 26.06.2013, since they had not vacated the flat and not paid damages of license fee @175/- per sqr. mtr. per month.
They aver that after joining the department on 12.03.2015 as MTS, the applicant made a request (on 10.04.2015) to transfer the flat allotted to his father in his name. A fresh notice dated 24.07.2015 u/s 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to the applicant with the direction to surrender the flat and pay license fee dues of Rs. 4,76,194/- for unauthorized occupation of flat, as per the rules. The applicant requested the respondents to charge the license fee dues as per government rates and to recover the same in monthly installments from his salary and to regularize the flat in his name. The applicant was informed that amount of HRA and license fee deducted from his salary w.e.f. 12.03.2015 will be reduced from the outstanding dues of Rs. 4,76,194/-. He was also informed that he has to pay 50% of dues by 10.10.2015 and balance 50% can be recovered in monthly installments from his salary along with interest @ 12% per annum.
On 23.09.2015, the applicant made a request for stay of eviction proceedings pleading that he does not have enough capacity or resources to pay such a huge amount @ 50% deduction from his salary. The respondents have submitted that the various contingencies under which official accommodation can be retained is governed by SR-317-B-11. Vide Clause-2 of the same, the maximum period for which retention of government accommodation can be permitted by HOD in case of death of allottee is one year extendable by another year provided deceased officer or his/her dependents do not own a house at the placing posting. There is no discretion to the HOD for grant of further extension.
The respondents have placed reliance on the following judgments in support of their contentions:-
(i) MCD Vs. Workment as represented by Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union & Another, [WP(C) No. 5173/2003] decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 29.05.2010.
(ii) G.R. Gupta Vs. Lok Sabha Secretariat, (LPA-370/2013 decided by Hon. High Court of Delhi on 29.11.2013.
I have gone through the facts of the case carefully. It is not disputed that the family of the deceased employee is in occupation of the government flat No. 527/I, Income Tax Colony, Pitampura, New Delhi since the death of late Sh. Ishwar Chand on 10.06.2006. They have far exceeded the normal period for retention of government flat. In view of the rule position, the family of the deceased cannot retain the government flat beyond the permissible period of two years from the date of death of the government employee.
The applicant cannot argue that since the respondents took considerable time (08 years) to process his case, the over stay should be condoned. Unauthorized occupation of a government flat and appointment on compassionate grounds under the Scheme are two separate issues, which cannot be clubbed together to circumvent the rules.
The action of the respondents asking the applicant to vacate the government accommodation is as per rules framed by Directorate of Estates for allotment of government flats. Any leniency or intervention in such cases would be extremely unfair to candidates, who are similarly placed and also eligible for government accommodation. The O.A. is thus dismissed as lacking merit. No costs.