Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1451 (KAR)

Hmt Retired Employees v. Union Of India

2022-11-09

E.S.INDIRESH

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Petitioner-Association is the Retired Employees Association of respondent No.2-Hindustan Machine Tools (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "Company"). It is the case of the petitioner-Association that members of the petitioner-Association were allotted quarters at the premises of the respondent No.2- Company and are provided with amenities. In view of the fact that the premises have been controlled by the respondent No.2- Company and are "public premises", and therefore, the premises is regulated under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). It is the case of the petitioner-Association that only the Estate Officer has the power to get the premises evicted from an unauthorised occupant. It is the further case of the petitioner-Association that appointment of the Estate Officer by the respondent No.5 is contrary to law, hence the present writ petition is filed challenging the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 as Estate Officers under the Act. 2. On service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objection contending that the petitioner-Association has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Estate Officer and it is also stated that the appointments have been made in terms of the provisions under the Act and accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Heard Ms. Sofiya, learned counsel for the petitioner- Association and Sri Unnikrishnan, Central Government Counsel for Respondents 1 to 7. 4. Ms. Sofia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Association, invited the attention of the Court to the provisions contained under the Act, particularly the definition of Sec. 2(b) read with Sec. 3 of the Act which provides for appointment of the Estate Officers, and argued that the impugned appointment orders passed by the respondent No.2- Company is non-est on the ground that the said appointment has been made only for Bangalore based units of Hindustan Machine Tools and not for any other Units. She further contended that the respondent No.1 has appointed the Estate Officer, Common Service Division and not the Common Service Division appointing/delegating some one as Estate Officer and in terms of Sec. 3 read with Sec. 2(f) of the Act, only the Common Service Division is to be appointed and approved by respondents 2 to 4 and not by the respondent No.2 alone and as such, she contended that in terms of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUMBAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOLDEN CHARIOT AIRPORT AND ANOTHER reported in 2010(10) SCC 422 , the appointment of Estate Officer is only by designation and not by delegation. Emphasising on these aspects, she contended that a person so appointed as in charge cannot exercise the substantial functions associated to the post of Estate Officer and therefore, the officers working in designations are nominated and obtained approval from the functional Directors and therefore, the appointment of respondents 6 and 7 as Estate Officers by the respondent No.5, is not in accordance with the provisions under the Act since the said Act does not contemplate approval basis or in-charge basis, as per Annexure-N to the writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri Unnikrishnan, learned Central Government Standing counsel, appearing for the respondents argued that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioners herein are the retired employees of the respondent No.2-Company and have no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the Estate Officer under the Act. He further contended that respondent No.5 is the statutory authority, who is in charge of Common Service Division Unit (Annexure-R2) which comes under the purview of the respondent No.2- Company and same has been approved by giving charge of Estate Officers, and therefore, he contended that the impugned order appointing the Estate Officer is within the purview of the Act. He further argued that the intention of the Legislature, insofar as the Act, is that the unauthorised occupants of the public premises be evicted by the officers of its own Department and not by outsiders and therefore, the officers of the statutory authority could be given the charge of Estate Officers in respect of the public premises controlled by the said Authority and therefore, he sought to sustain the order of appointment of Estate Officers. He further contended that the petitioners herein have also challenged the order of appointment of Estate Officers before the Civil Judge in appeal proceedings and same is pending consideration before the competent Court and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have given my anxious consideration with regard to the locus standi of the petitioners-Association. Admittedly, petitioner-Association is an association of retired employees of the respondent No.2-Company. The respondent No.2-Company has allotted its quarters to the employees of its establishment while they were working in the said establishment and it is the duty of such employees to vacate the premises/quarters immediately after retirement/attaining superannuation in the respondent No.2-Company. Continuance of such retired employees in premises/quarters of the respondent No.2- Company amounts to unauthorised occupation of such premises/quarters. In view of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I have carefully examined the memo dtd. 7/11/2022 filed by respondents herein whereby more than 110 retired employees are in unauthorised occupation of such quarters/premises. It is also reflected in the said memo that the respondent No.2- Company has to recover Rs.48, 25, 080.00 from the retired employees. The rates fixed by the respondent No.2-Compay for such quarters/premises is Rs.6.00 per square feet and these retired employees residing in such premises are questioning the appointment of Estate Officers to prolong the proceedings, so that no action be taken by such Estate Officers to get from evicted from premises/quarters. In this regard, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner-Association has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Estate Officers, having become default in payment of rent inter alia continuing to stay in such premises/quarters post-retirement period, which amounts to unauthorised occupation and same is contrary to the provisions contained under the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to deduce the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. ONKAR NATH DHAR reported in (2022)1 SCC 40 wherein at paragraphs 15 and 17 of the judgment, it is observed thus: "15. The applicants are occupying the government accommodation at the cost of other government servants who are waiting in queue for allotment of a government accommodation to discharge their official duties. The applicants are occupying the government accommodation at the cost of other government servants who are waiting in queue for allotment of a government accommodation to discharge their official duties. The compassion shown to Kashmiri migrants has to be balanced with the expectations of the serving officers to discharge their duties effectively. The government accommodation is meant for serving officers and cannot be taken as a recourse to stay in government accommodation for the lifetime of the government servants of his/her spouse. 17. We find that the Office Memorandum allowing government accommodation to the retired government employees who are Kashmiri migrants cannot meet the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The government houses/flats are meant for serving government employees. Post retirement, the government employees including Kashmiri migrants are granted pensionary benefits including monthly pension. The classification made in favour of the government employees who were Kashmiri migrants stands on the same footing as that of other government employees or public figures. There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri migrants to stay in government accommodation for indefinite long period. 7. Undisputably, large number of such defaulters/unauthorised occupants are the members of the petitioner-Association. The present writ petition is filed to refrain the respondent No.2-Company to get back their premises/quarters to accommodate its existing employees. Petitioner-Association is formed under the provisions of Societies Registration Act governed by its bye-laws and in that view of the matter, challenge to the appointment of Estate Officers by the respondents against such unauthorised occupants in the premises in question, cannot be the object of the petitioner-Association. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of INDIAN BANK, BENGALURU v. M/S. BLAZE AND CENTRAL (P) LTD. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1986 KAR 258 , held that appointment of officer of the same department or statutory body, which owns public premises as Estate Officer, is valid and in the said case, the appointment of the Estate Officer was made under Sec. 3 of the Act. I have also noticed from the Notification dtd. 14/1/2011 produced at Annexure-R6 to the writ petition whereby the Estate Officer of Common Services Division, HMT Limited has been appointed with designation to take appropriate decision in the matter with regard to vacation of premises/quarters by the unauthorised occupants in the premises owned by the respondent No.2- Company. I have also noticed from the Notification dtd. 14/1/2011 produced at Annexure-R6 to the writ petition whereby the Estate Officer of Common Services Division, HMT Limited has been appointed with designation to take appropriate decision in the matter with regard to vacation of premises/quarters by the unauthorised occupants in the premises owned by the respondent No.2- Company. In that view of the matter, I do not find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Association. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 payable by the petitioner-Association to the respondent No.2-Company. The cost has been imposed on the ground that the petitioner-Association has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Estate Officers and further, the intention of filing of the writ petition is an abuse of process of law to restrain the respondent No.2-Company to take appropriate decision to accommodate the existing employees in the premises, where the members of the petitioner-Association are residing as unauthorised occupants for more than two decades depriving the facility being extended to the new entrants which was extended to them during their tenure in the respondent No.2-Company, and hence, writ petition is dismissed with costs.