Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 742 (JHR)

R. K. Rai v. Union of India

2014-07-16

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER The petitioner was the Chief Medical Officer of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to be as “HEC”), who got retired on 31.12.2006. While the petitioner was serving as Chief Medical Officer of HEC, he had been allotted F-Type Quarter. During course of his employment, HEC came with a circular bearing Circular No.08 / 2008 relating to allotment of E-Type Quarter on long term lease to those occupying E-type quarters and also with respect to allotment of E-Type Quarter, who has been in occupation of F-Type Quarter. Said Circular No.08/ 2008 reads as follows:- CIRCULAR NO.08/2008 Sub.: Scheme for Allotment of HEC Quarters on Long Term Lease (LTL). Ref. i) Circular No.03/2006 dated 06.04.2006 ii) Circular No.05/2006 dated 04.05.2006 iii) Circular No.03/2006 dated 03.06.2006 The “scheme for Allotment of HEC quarters on Long Term Lease-2006” introduced vide the circular at Reference (I) above, is hereby re-opened for a period of one month with immediate effect. Accordingly the eligible persons desirous of taking LTL of their self occupied quarters (as per the annexed list mentioned in para 2.1 of the aforesaid circular No.06.04.2006) shall apply in the prescribed application form (to be obtained from TA Divn on payment of Rs.25/-) along with the receipt of the Earnest Money, wherever applicable on before 28th October, 2006. Further, it is informed that the occupants employee of 'F' type quarters may apply for LTL of vacant lower type quarters (covered in the annexed list mentioned in para 2.1 of the aforesaid circular dated 06.04.2006) if any for consideration on the basis of preference and seniority. In case of acceptance of application for LTL in such cases, the F-type quarters will be surrendered within forty days of the date of issue of provisional allotment of the lower type of quarters on LTL. The LTL in such cases will be effective from the date of occupation of the lower type quarters allotted on LTL.” 2. Before the said Circular came into force, two E-type Quarters bearing Qr. No.E-13/III and E-24/III, under the occupation of CISF personnel, were vacated and were taken under the Pool and those quarters were to be allotted to the persons residing in the F-type Quarters according to their seniority. It further appears that the petitioner's position in the seniority list was th . One M.S. Murty happened to be the senior most. No.E-13/III and E-24/III, under the occupation of CISF personnel, were vacated and were taken under the Pool and those quarters were to be allotted to the persons residing in the F-type Quarters according to their seniority. It further appears that the petitioner's position in the seniority list was th . One M.S. Murty happened to be the senior most. 2nd and 3rd in the seniority list was B.K. Roy and Binay Kumar. After those two quarters were vacated by the CISF personnel, it were allotted to B.K. Roy and Binay Kumar when Mr. M.S Murty, the senior most, refused to have quarter under long term lease. 3. According to case of the petitioner, since the petitioner, after the allotment of quarters to them, was No.1 in the seniority list, he was expecting allotment of the quarter, as he had made application for allotment of the quarter. Instead of allotting the quarter, the establishment lodged a case before Estate Officer for evicting the petitioner from F-type Quarter, which the petitioner was occupying. The petitioner, after putting appearance, raised an objection over competency of the Estate Officer to proceed with the matter relating to eviction. 4. When no order was passed, the petitioner did move to this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of, directing the petitioner to raise this issue before the Ministry. The petitioner did move before the Ministry. Meantime, an application was filed before the Estate Officer on 12.01.2009 to stay his hand so long matter is pending before the Ministry, but the Estate Officer, without waiting for the order from the Ministry, proceeded with the matter and on that day itself decided the case whereby the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the quarter in question. 5. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was transferred to the court of Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, who affirmed the order passed by the Estate Officer, holding therein that the petitioner has been unauthorized occupant from the date of 31.03.2007. 6. Being aggrieved with those orders, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Mr. 6. Being aggrieved with those orders, this writ petition has been filed. 7. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in any event, the petitioner, in view of the stipulation made under Circular No.08/2008 cannot be said to be an unauthorized occupant, even if the petitioner did not vacate the quarter after expiry of three months from the date of his superannuation as the petitioner was under impression that in terms of the decision taken under the Circular, the petitioner would be allotted E-type quarter on long term lease, but the authority of the HEC did not allot the quarter to the petitioner, though he was the senior most and had applied for settlement of the quarter on long term lease and, therefore, unless and until, any quarter is settled under long term lease by the authority, the petitioner cannot be taken to be unauthorized occupant, as the petitioner has to vacate the quarter within forty five days from the date of provisional allotment. 8. Further, it was submitted that since the petitioner had never been settled with the quarter, question of vacating the quarter within 45 days from the date of provisional allotment does not arise, but both the courts below did not take into account this aspect of the matter and, thereby, the court committed illegality in declaring the petitioner as unauthorized occupant and passing the order of eviction. 9. Further submission is that in terms of provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1958, the Central Government appointed Revenue Officer of the Establishment as Estate Officer, but from the perusal of the Notification, it would appear that one person having background of the Management, has been appointed as Revenue Officer and, thereby, he was not competent to decide the issue and under the circumstances, both the orders passed by the courts below are fit to be set aside. 10. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the HEC submits that stipulation made under the Circular No.08/2008 never gives any right to the occupant to occupy the quarter, even after expiry of three months from the date of retirement. 10. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the HEC submits that stipulation made under the Circular No.08/2008 never gives any right to the occupant to occupy the quarter, even after expiry of three months from the date of retirement. So far as Circular No.08/2008 is concerned, that speaks about the allotment of the E-type quarter on long term lease and in case of settlement of the quarter under long term lease to the occupant of the F-type quarter, he is required to vacate the quarter within forty five days, but the petitioner had never been settled with any quarter under long term lease. In fact, after settlement of two quarters to Mr. B.K. Roy and Mr. Binay Kumar, who were seniors to the petitioner, the HEC had not settled any quarter to any of the person junior to the petitioner and thereby, no legal right accrues to the petitioner to claim settlement under long term lease. 11. Both the courts, having taken into account this aspect of the matter, did find the petitioner to be an illegal occupant of the quarter and passed order for his eviction after giving number of opportunities to the petitioner to place his case but he avoided to adduce his evidence. 12. Further it was submitted that both the courts, Estate Officer as well as Appellate Court, have also gone into the matter relating to jurisdiction and it came to the conclusion that the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to decide the issue and the under circumstances, the impugned order never warrants to be quashed. 13. I do find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the HEC. 14. It is apparent that the conditions laid down under the Circular relating to settlement of the quarter is quite independent to the matter relating to eviction. 15. In the instant case, the proceeding of eviction was initiated before the Estate Officer, when the petitioner refused to evict the quarter even after expiry of three months from the date of his retirement. 16. So far stipulation, which had been made under the Circular No.08/2008, is concerned, it does speaks that the occupant of F-type Quarter may apply for settlement of E-type Quarter on long term lease, which shall be considered on the basis of the preference and seniority. 17. 16. So far stipulation, which had been made under the Circular No.08/2008, is concerned, it does speaks that the occupant of F-type Quarter may apply for settlement of E-type Quarter on long term lease, which shall be considered on the basis of the preference and seniority. 17. At the same time, stipulation is there that as soon as the quarter is allotted on long term lease to an employee, who, has been in occupation of F-type Quarter, he is supposed to vacate the F-type quarter within forty five days of the allotment of the E-type quarter. 18. Admittedly, the petitioner had never been settled with any quarter. It has also been admitted that none of the junior of the petitioner has been settled with the quarter, rather only two persons occupying the F-type Quarters namely, B.K. Roy and Binay Kumar, who had been senior to the petitioner, have been settled with E-type Quarters. 19. In that event, the stand, which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that he was not supposed to vacate the quarter unless the quarter is settled under long term lease, is not acceptable, rather in terms of the service condition of the petitioner, he had to vacate the quarter, after expiry of three months from the date of his superannuation. 20. Under the circumstances, the Estate Officer as well as the Appellate Authority seem to be quite justified in passing the impugned orders. 21. So far as the matter relating to competency of the Estate Officer is concerned, I do not find anything wrong with the Estate Officer, who had been appointed as Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants), 1958. 22. Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality with the impugned orders and hence it never warrant to be quashed. 23. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.