Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 649 (DEL)

UNION OF INDIA v. C. K. SAXENA

2000-08-07

MANMOHAN SARIN

body2000
Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) REPLY affidavit on behalf of the respondent has not been filed though opportunities for filing the same were given on 24. 11. 1999 and 29. 2. 2000. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that he would argue the matter. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Union of India has filed this writ petition assailing the order of the learned Additional District Judge, setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Director of Estates. The learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of eviction on the ground that allotment of the residential premises in favour of the respondent had been cancelled vide letter dated 4. 3. 1997, without giving any show cause notice. The learned Additional District Judge held that proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, pursuant to the said order of cancellation, were illegal and of no effect. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 had retired as a Junior Accounts Officer on 31. 12. 1996. By virtue of Supplementary Rule 317-B (1) (2) and (3), respondent No. 1 was entitled to continue in occupation of the premises only for a period of four months after retirement, i. e. till 30th of April, 1997. ( 4 ) THE question which comes up for consideration in this petition is whether a show cause notice is required to be issued in respect of the premises occupied by a retiring employee prior to cancelling the allotment, especially when the entitlement of the employee under the rules is to retain it for a period of four months after retirement ? ( 5 ) I am of the view that the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, setting aside the order of eviction on the ground that show cause notice had not been given prior to cancelling the allotment of the retiring employee, is not sustainable. The retiring employee ceases to have any right to occupy the premises on his retirement. Supplementary Rule 317b provides for a period of four months of grace to continue in its occupation. The employee becomes an unauthorised occupant and no show cause notice, prior to cancelling the formal allotment, is required to be given. The retiring employee ceases to have any right to occupy the premises on his retirement. Supplementary Rule 317b provides for a period of four months of grace to continue in its occupation. The employee becomes an unauthorised occupant and no show cause notice, prior to cancelling the formal allotment, is required to be given. ( 6 ) THERE is also no merit in the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent that, there has been violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the cancellation order and in initiating the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The respondent had ample opportunity to raise his defence, if any, before the Estate Officer, prior to the passing of the order of eviction. This apart, it was even put to learned Counsel for the respondent that he could, even at this stage, point out any plea or right which would enable the respondent to retain the premises in his occupation. The learned Additional District Judge, vide the impugned order, had directed the parties to appear before the Estate Officer for fresh proceedings on 27. 7. 1998. Neither the petitioner, nor the respondent s Counsel were in a position to apprise the Court as to the status of proceedings, if any, before the Estate Officer. ( 7 ) CERTAIN other facts may also be noticed. The respondent, after having succeeded before the learned Additional District Judge, has continued to be in occupation of the premises in question. It may also be noted that respondent s son, Mr. Viplav Saxena, had submitted an application on 29th January, 1997 for allotment and regularisation of the quarter in his favour, on the ground that he had been residing with his father and being in Government service, he was entitled to be allotted the said quarter. The said application was received by the petitioner on 6. 2. 1997 and certain documents are stated to have been asked for from respondent s son. Be that as it may, respondent s son withdrew the application on 9. 2. 1997. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, at this stage, submitted that respondent would like to apply for regularisation in favour of his second son, who is also in Government service, and the case be deferred to await the outcome thereof. Be that as it may, respondent s son withdrew the application on 9. 2. 1997. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, at this stage, submitted that respondent would like to apply for regularisation in favour of his second son, who is also in Government service, and the case be deferred to await the outcome thereof. The application on behalf of the first son having been withdrawn, I am afraid, at this belated stage, request for deferment of the case to await outcome of application for regularisation in favour of the second son cannot be entertained.