J.P. Singhal vs LIC of India and Others

Kailash Gambhir, J.—By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks directions for declaring the deduction/recovery of Rs. 1,40,907.75 made by the respondent/LIC out of his retirement benefits, as illegal and unjustified. Mr. Vijay Gupta, counsel for the petitioner submits that vide orders dated 1.8.1990 the petitioner had gone on deputation with the DDA initially for a period of two years w.e.f. 1st August, 1990 till 31st July, 1992 and thereafter the said period of deputation was extended till 28th February, 1993. Counsel further submits that when the petitioner was with his parent Department he was allotted Government accommodation i.e. premises bearing No. 64, Janpath, New Delhi along with a garage. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was never allotted any accommodation by the DDA till 6.1.1992 when an offer was made for allotment of an accommodation at Asiad village. Counsel further submits that although prior to that an offer was made to allot accommodation at Bhagwan Das Road but the same was subject to vacation by its occupant. Counsel submits that the said premises were never vacated by the occupant and the offer, which was made on 6.1.1992 was illusory in nature as by that time only about six months time was left for the deputation period of the petitioner to expire. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner would have been unnecessarily put to harassment to shift from Janpath to Asiad as the only six months period was left to expire. Counsel thus submits that the respondent/LIC has illegally deducted the said amount from his retiral benefits.

Ms. Alpana Poddar, counsel for the respondent/DDA on the other hand submits that vide orders dated 6th January, 1992 the respondent DDA had allotted staff quarter No. 6/590, Asiad Games Village complex in place of earlier offer made to the petitioner, but without any reasons the petitioner did not occupy the said premises. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was to occupy the said premises within a period of eight days in terms of the said office order. Counsel further submits that this is a normal and routine exercise for the officers to shift from one place to another and there was no reason for the petitioner not to occupy the said accommodation offered to him. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was well aware that once he was accepting the said post on deputation he would be shifting to some other accommodation after vacating the premises of the LIC.

Mr. Kamal Mehta, counsel representing LIC submits that order u/s 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was passed against the petitioner vide order dated 3rd July, 1992 and the said order became final after the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner filed before the District Judge. Counsel further submits that once the petitioner continued to occupy the said premises of the LIC, after being sent on deputation to DDA, the action of the respondent LIC was absolutely legal and justified to recover the said amount of Rs. 1,40,907.75 from his retiral benefits.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

I do not find that there was any justification in petitioner''s not shifting to the premises at Asiad games village, offer of which was made to the petitioner vide office order dated 6th January, 1992. Prior thereto, however, since the DDA failed to provide the vacant accommodation to the petitioner, therefore, for the period i.e. from the date of deputation till 5th January, 1992 it was the responsibility of the DDA to reimburse the rental charges of the said accommodation of to the LIC and for which the petitioner can not be held responsible. I do not find myself in agreement with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, who states that the offer made to the petitioner vide order dated 6.1 1992 was illusory in nature. The petitioner had accepted the offer of deputation knowing fully well that he would be given an accommodation by the DDA and, therefore, will have to vacate the premises at Janpath. It is quite natural and consequential that the officer sent on deputation is not supposed to retain the accommodation of his parent department. Therefore there was no reason for the petitioner not to have shifted to the said accommodation. I am, therefore, of the view that the respondent DDA shall pay the amount from 1st August, 1990 till 5th January, 1992 to the petitioner directly along with interest @ 12% from the date when the said amount was deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. However, from 6th January, 1992 the responsibility will be of the petitioner and, therefore, no directions can be given for the refund of the said recovery, made by the LIC. As regards other charges shown at page 58 pertaining to water and geyser, it is made clear that all such charges for the period effective from 1st August, 1990 to 5th January, 1992 shall be the responsibility of the DDA and thereafter that of the petitioner. In respect of the garage which was a part of the said accommodation same principle will apply.

With these directions the petition is disposed of.