Delhi High Court
Smt. Babli And Anr. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 31 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 95(2002)DLT144, 2001(60)DRJ788
Author: Sharda Aggarwal
Bench: Sharda Aggarwal
ORDER
Khan, J
1. All the three petitions involving common questions of fact and law are disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioners are LRs of retired/dead employees who were allotted Government accommodation during their respective service tenure. They are also in Govt. service now and are holding on to the premises and asking for regularisation of allotment or a fresh allotment in their names or a fresh allotment of the premises in their names. But respondents have rejected their request and have ordered charging of market rent from them besides initiating eviction proceeding under Eviction of unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971. They challenged this in OAs which are dismissed by Tribunal for want of jurisdiction by placing reliance on Supreme Court Judgment in Union Vs. Rasila Ram and others (JT 2000(10) SC 503. They have now filed these petitions and want us to hold that Tribunal possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain their petitions under relevant provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
3. L/C for petitioner, Mr. Bisaria has taken us through these provisions and the Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool in Delhi) Rules of 1963, in a bid to persuade us that petitioner's claim for regularisation of allotment or fresh allotment related to their service condition thus vesting jurisdiction in Tribunal to entertain and examine it. He placed whole hog reliance in this regard on Section 3 (Q)(V) of the Act and Supplementary General Pool Rules. He interpreted expression "any other matter whatsoever" occurring in Section 3 (Q)(V) to include everything connected with the service of an employee including claim to residential accommodation. According to time once an employee did not charge HRA, his claim for residential accommodation would in lieu thereof would partake the character of a service condition. He also referred to the other set of Rules to claim that these entitled government employees to residential accommodation and constituted a service condition to that extent which was cognizable by Tribunal under the Act.
4. Section 3 (Q) (V) which is material for our purposes in reproduced for proper appreciation of the issue involved:
"(q) "service matters" in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the Control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects-
(i) .....
(ii) .....
(iii) .....
(iv) .....
(v) any other matter whatsoever"
5. It must be clarified at the very outset that claim to allotment of Govt. residential accommodation does not become condition of service unless the relevant service Rules provide so. No such rule was shown or pressed in service in the present case which provided for petitioners entitlement to residential accommodation. The expression "any other matter" occurring in Sub Clause V could not be also interpreted so liberally and loosely as to include any matter whatsoever whether or not it was related to employees service condition. The words "any matter" would be read esjuda generis and in the context of provisions of Rule 3(Q). Otherwise any contrary interpretation placed on it would lead to absurd results and would make Tribunal a forum for all matters including private matters of an employee. That indeed cannot be the intent and purpose of this Rule which defines the service Matters for purposes of giving jurisdiction to Tribunal. The employee's non charging of HRA would be inconsequential in this regard and would not convert his claim for residential accommodation to service condition.
6. As regards pool Rules, they only regulate the allotment of Govt. accommodation and do not confer any right as such on an employee to claim it.
7. All this notwithstanding, we find that Tribunal had held petitioners OAs not maintainable upon reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in Rasila Ram case (supra) which laid down:-
"Once a government servant is held to be in occupation of a public premises as an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of Eviction Act, and appropriate orders are passed there under, the remedy to such occupants lies as provided under the said Act. By no stretch of imagination the expression any other matter in Section 13(q)(v) of the Administrative Tribunal Act would confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal to go into the legality of the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the PPE Act, 1971. In this view of the matter, the impugned assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal over an order passed by the competent authority under the Eviction Act must be held to be invalid and without jurisdiction. This order of the Tribunal accordingly stands set aside.
8. We have gone through that judgment which proceeds on the premises that once eviction action was initiated for his unauthorised occupation of premises under the relevant Act, Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction in the matter by reference to Sec. 3(Q)(V) by treating it as "any other matter". That conclusively settles the issue once for all and it need be hardly expressed that law laid down by Supreme Court was binding on all including Tribunal and therefore its impugned orders could not be faulted for that. This is so for the added reason that Eviction Act provided its own safeguards and remedies and where an employee felt aggrieved of any orders passed under this Act, he was to seek appropriate remedy provided therein instead of approaching the Tribunal with his grievance in this regard.
9. In the present case also eviction proceedings stood initiated against petitioners who had all the options to avail of the safeguards and remedies provided under the relevant Act. The question of Tribunal assuming jurisdiction therefore did not arise.
10. We, accordingly, hold that CAT had no jurisdiction to entertain OAs claiming allotment or regularisation of Govt. accommodation unless such claim was shown to be a condition of service. Nor could it assume jurisdiction where eviction action was taken against an employee for his alleged unauthorised occupation of the premises under the Eviction Act. These petitions are accordingly dismissed and Tribunal order affirmed.