S.K. Sood vs Central Public Works Dept and Another

CM No. 3159/2011

Exemption application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM No. 3158/2011

This is an application for condonation of delay of fifteen days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. B.V. Niren, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, we find sufficient cause exist for condonation of delay and accordingly delay stands condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

LPA No. 158/2011

The present appeal challenges the order dated 8th December, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11497/2009 whereby he has affirmed the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby he has concurred with the order passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for brevity, Act).

It is submitted by Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel for the Appellant that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate that the Appellant was entitled to retain the quarter for a period of eight months from the date of his relieving from Delhi and further eighteen months if he was posted at a hard station. It is contended by him that the Appellant was relieved from Delhi on 21st September, 2004 to join at Jaipur and while he was serving at Jaipur, he was not provided a quarter. He was transferred to Bikaner on 12th April, 2005 and, therefore, he is covered by the circular which postulates that if an employee is posted at a hard station, he is entitled to retain the quarter for eighteen months. Mr. Niren, learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the computation of eighteen months has to be done from the date of his last posting and solely because the Appellant was not given an accommodation at Jaipur, he cannot claim the right to possess a quarter at Delhi for a period of eighteen months.

On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, it is perceptible that he has taken into consideration the period from 21st May, 2005 till 31st July, 2006 as authorized accommodation on the foundation that the Appellant could not have got the benefit of the hard station posting as his last posting was not at Delhi but at Jaipur. In our considered opinion, the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge is sound.

We have been apprised at the Bar that the competent authority has the power to exonerate the penalty. It is submitted by Mr. Sethi that the Appellant was a Junior Engineer and a heavy amount has been imposed towards penalty. It is also urged by him that there was a misconception that he was entitled to retain the quarter for eighteen months. Regard being had to the totality of circumstances, we are only inclined to modify the order of the learned single Judge that if Appellant makes a representation to the competent authority to exonerate or waive or reduce the penalty, the said authority shall be well advised to consider the same with utmost objectivity to waive or reduce so that the employee who was under a misconception may not put to enormous jeopardy to pay approximately Rs. 2,30,000/-. If a representation in this regard is submitted within a period of six weeks, the same shall be dealt with by the competent authority within a period of eight weeks therefrom. Till the matter is finally dealt with, no coercive steps shall be taken by the competent authority to realize the said sum.

With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned single Judge, the appeal stands disposed of without any order as to costs.