HAMENDRA NATH SHARMA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

SUNIL GAUR

1.Upon retirement of petitioner on 31st August, 2006, he was intimated about pensionary benefits by fourth respondent vide Communication of 17th

August, 2006 (Annexure-P-12). As per the aforesaid Communication of 17th August, 2006 (Annexure-P-12), `2,97,693/- was payable to petitioner as

gratuity. According to petitioner, a sum of `2,05,813/- has been deducted by fourth respondent from petitioner’s retiral dues. Â

2.Respondent-Union of India in its counter affidavit has asserted that the deduction from the retiral dues of petitioner was made, as petitioner was

declared as unauthorized occupant by Directorate of Estate on 28th September, 2004. As per aforesaid order of 28th September, 2004, the allotment

of General Pool Residential Accommodation to petitioner was cancelled on account of unauthorized sub-letting of the said accommodation and

damages were imposed upon petitioner.

3.Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Estate Officer’s order of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10) to submit

that the allegation levelled against petitioner of sub-letting the premises allotted to him, does not stand proved and the matter was remanded back. It

is the case of petitioner that on 18th August, 2006, another official accommodation was allotted to him vide Communication of 18th August, 2016

(Annexure-11).Â

4.The stand taken by respondent-Union of India in the counter affidavit is that the Estate Officer under the Allotment of Government Residences

(General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963, is not vested with the power to decide about sub-letting. Â

5.At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner points out that the order of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10) of the Estate Officer, has not been

challenged by respondents and since it has attained finality, therefore, respondents are precluded from deducting `2 lacs odd from the gratuity payable

to petitioner.Â

6.Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, I find that the Cancellation Order of 28th September, 2004 (Annexureâ€"I to the counter

affidavit) with regard to Government accommodation allotted to petitioner, was appealable and infact, an appeal was filed by petitioner before the

Estate Officer, which was allowed vide order of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10), which has attained finality.Â

7.Vide order of 19th December, 2005 (Annexure P-10) the Estate Officer has held that sub-letting of the official residential accommodation in

question does not stand proved. In such a situation, reliance placed upon the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules, 1963

is of no avail as the cancellation order of 28th September, 2004 stands annulled vide order of 19th December, 2005. Thus, no justification remains for

deducting `2 lacs odd from the gratuity of petitioner.

8.In view of the aforesaid, first respondent is directed to refund the amount of `2,05,813/- deducted from petitioner’s retiral benefits with interest

@ 6% per annum thereon, which shall be payable from January, 2006 till the date of refund of the deducted amount. Needful be done within a period

of six weeks, failing which interest @ 8% per annum shall be payable by first respondent to petitioner from the date of default, till the date of

payment.Â

9.With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.    Â

            Â