Sribhagwan vs Union of India and Others

WP(C) No. 3079/2012

Issue show cause notice to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate, accepts notice and seeks time to file reply to the show cause notice. Reply to the show cause notice be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by three days before the next date of hearing.

List on 16th August, 2012.

CM No. 6626/2012(Stay)

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. Ravinder Aggarwal, Advocate, accepts notice and seeks time to file reply. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by three days before the next date of hearing.

The petitioner''s contention is that he had filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 6278/2010, titled as Sribhagwan v. Union of India, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 3rd March, 2011, directing the respondent to consider the representation of the wife of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to take decision within six months on receipt of application. The court had also held that the petitioner would be invalidated from the service on account of permanent disability attributable to the government service and the cut-off date would be afternoon of 31st March, 2011. The Court had also prohibited the respondent from effecting any recovery from the petitioner on account of amount incurred by him on his treatment.

Pursuant to another application, being CM No. 4348/2011, this Court had again directed the respondent to get the petitioner examined from the Board of Doctors, consisting of at least 1 Orthopedic doctor, to certify disability of the petitioner and if the disability of the petitioner is found to be more than 75%, he would be entitled to the attendance allowance. The Court by order dated 1st April, 2011 had directed the respondent that the amounts due to the petitioner be disbursed in accordance with the percentage of the disability.

The petitioner has contended that though he is entitled for Rs. 9 lakhs by way of ex-gratia compensation; Rs. 10 lakhs as Group Insurance; and Rs. 3,000/- per month towards attendance allowance, however, the said amounts which are due to him pursuant to the order of this Court and the amounts which the petitioner is entitled to, have not been paid to him, rather a notice dated 27th April, 2012 has been issued directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation bearing residence No. 17, Block No. 28, Type-I, SPl. CRPF Campus, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. The petitioner has further contended that he is entitled for the amounts, since he has become 100% disabled, and that the respondents are not entitled to dispossess him from his accommodation as the representation of his wife for appointment has also not been decided.

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has a good prima facie case, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner as inconvenience caused to the petitioner shall be much more in case he is evicted without settling the dispute with the respondents which the respondent is liable to settle in terms of the order passed by this Court, which admittedly has not been done by the respondent as per the allegations made by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury in case he is evicted from his premises.

Considering the facts and circumstances, and for the foregoing reasons, operation of the Notice dated 27th April, 2012 and the eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation bearing residence No. 17, Block No. 28, Type-I, SPl. CRPF Campus, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, is stayed till the next date of hearing.

List on 16th August, 2012. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.