Delhi District Court
Biltu Mondal vs . The Estate Officer & Others on 6 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST: SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
PPA No. 10/2019
Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others
Sh. Biltu Mondal S/o Sh. A. K. Mondal
R/o: Block C-2/113, Type-II,
Lodi Colony, New Delhi ..... Appellant
VERSUS
1. The Estate Officer
Directorate of Estates,
Government of India, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110011
2. Ministry of Communications
Government of India
Department of Posts
Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001
Through its Chief Postmaster General
3. Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Government of India
Surplus Staff Establishment Cell of Erstwhile DGS & D
Department of Commerce,
301, Jeevan Tara Building, 5-Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
Through its Under Secretary
4. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Division of Retraining & Redeployment
Department of India,
Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market,
New Delhi - 110003
Through its Under Secretary ..... Respondents
PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 1 of 11
Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others
First date before this Court: 30.11.2019
Date of Order : 06.08.2021
ORDER:
1. An Appeal under Section 9 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the "Act" ) has been filed against the Eviction Order dated 11.11.2019 made against the appellant in respect of the premises No. C-2/113, Type-II, Lodi Colony, New Delhi.
2. The facts in brief are that the Sh. A. K. Mondal, father of the appellant as an employee of Government of India was allotted Flat No. 2239, Lodi Road, New Delhi. On his demise on 13.02.1998, the flat allotted in his name was cancelled vide letter dated 12.03.1998 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (The Estate Officer). In the interim, the appellant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk w.e.f. 11.06.1998 in the Government Department with the Respondent No. 3. On the representation of the appellant, the flat that was earlier in the name of his father Sh. A. K. Mondal was regularised in his name vide letter dated 26.03.1999. However, the appellant was made to formally vacate this flat on 13.04.1999 but on the same day, another flat was given to the appellant in lieu thereof. However, on 08.07.1999 appellant shifted to another flat bearing No. 2296, Lodi Road, New Delhi in the same locality. Finally, on 23.07.1999 he shifted to the present accommodation bearing Quarter No. 113, Block C-2, PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 2 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others Type-II, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and since then the appellant has been residing in the said flat.
3. Unfortunately, for administrative reasons appellant was declared as surplus on 09.10.2017 by Respondent No. 3 and was transferred to Respondent No. 4 for suitable redeployment. The Appellant got deployed with the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 07.12.2017. The appellant resumed the post of Sorting Assistant with Respondent No 2 and Charge Report was also prepared.
4. The appellant on being posted again with the Respondent No 2, made a request for regularization of the quarter. However, Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 08.02.2018 informed that the quarter of the appellant is not under Postal Pool of the Respondent No. 2, but falls with the Respondent No. 1 and the same could not be regularized. Appellant then made request vide letter dated 12.03.2018 but was informed that after his deployment with the Respondent No. 2, the term used for regularization is "Inter Pool Exchange".
5. In the meantime, the appellant was offered a flat in Vivek Vihar from the Postal Pool vide letter dated 05.07.2018 but the appellant was not inclined to shift to the said flat on account of medical contingency of himself and his family members. Appellant then sent a request letter to the Respondent No. 1 on 08.10.2018 for Inter Pool Exchange as Respondent No. 2 was offering a higher category of accommodation in lieu of the flat in question, as per the PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 3 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others exchange policy. However, the request for Inter Pool Exchange was declined by the Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 19.03.2019 on the ground that the afore- mentioned quarter of Vivek Vihar is not in Central Locality. Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 19.03.2019 then offered one Quarter No. LPT 323, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi for Inter Pool Exchange to the Respondent No. 1 but, this request of Respondent No. 2 was again turned down by the Respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 27.05.2019 on the ground that the aforesaid quarter of Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi "is going to be demolished in the redevelopment plan of Sarojini Nagar". It was further written that the request for Inter Pool Exchange of Government Accommodation can be considered if the Department of Post would offer a Type-III Quarter in Central Area (i.e. Gole Market, New Delhi) which is maintained by CPWD in lieu of lower type of accommodation in General Pool Accommodation or else it may be treated as rejected.
6. The Respondent No. 2 vide its letter dated 24.06.2019 again represented to the Respondent No. 1 that redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar would take place only after execution of separate Agreement with the NBCC and it did not appear that demolition of P & T Quarters in Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi would take place in near future. It was further clarified that in case of redevelopment of P & T Colony, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi the Department PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 4 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others of Post would either offer another Type-III Quarter or surrender the original residential quarter of General Pool Accommodation.
7. The appellant in the meanwhile, also made request vide letter dated 16.07.2019 to Respondent No. 1 for Inter Pool Exchange of his flat. He also made similar request vide letter dated 01.085.2019 to the Secretary, HUA of the Respondent No. 1.
8. In the meanwhile, the matter was referred to the Estate Officer for eviction and Notice under Section 4 of the Act dated 08.02.2019 was served upon the Respondent No. 1 seeking explanation as to why an Eviction Order be not made against him. It is stated that the Eviction Order has finally been made against the appellant on 11.11.2019.
9. Aggrieved by the Eviction Order dated 11.11.2019 the present appeal has been filed.
10.The main grounds which have been agitated are that the allotment of this flat was made to the appellant while he was employed with the Respondent No. 3 in accordance with the rules and regulations as applicable for the allotment of the quarter. He has been regularly paying the license fee and his HRA is also being deducted from the salary. Unfortunately, the appellant was declared surplus staff and was accordingly notified by the Respondent No. 4. However, he had been deployed with the Respondent No. 2 through legal process and in view of the changed circumstances and also his redeployment; he is PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 5 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others entitled for regularisation of the quarter in his name for which he immediately sent a request. The formal request for Inter Pool Exchange was made by the Respondent No. 2, as well as by him. Furthermore, as per Inter Pool Exchange Policy flat of higher type i.e. Type-III Quarter was offered in Vivek Vihar, Delhi but was rejected only on the ground that it was not centrally located. Another flat in Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi was offered but again the request was declined on the ground that the Sarojini Nagar Flats were likely to be demolished soon.
11.It is submitted that the adamancy of Respondent No. 1 to get the flat vacated from the appellant was evident from its conduct in rejecting the request for Inter Pool Exchange on frivolous grounds. Respondent No. 1 has misused its powers under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act and the Eviction Order has been made illegally against him. It is further submitted that the identical circumstances of cancellation of quarter allotted to Sh. Abhishek has been challenged by way of an appeal and Ld. Addl. District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has granted stay of cancellation of flat vide order dated 26.09.2019.
12.It is further submitted that Eviction Order dated 11.11.2019 has been passed terming appellant as unauthorised occupant in public premises, which is illegal and the Eviction Order is liable to be set-aside.
13.Respondent No. 1 The Estate Officer in detailed PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 6 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others reply has submitted that as per the policy guidelines issued by the Directorate of Estate's Policy Section OM No. 12035/9/89-Po.II (Vol. II) dated 19.09.2014 and subsequent clarification dated 24.04.2015 the decision was taken to discourage Inter Pool Exchange of General Pool Residential Accommodation due to acute shortage of accommodation. Inter Pool Exchange is to be allowed only in cases where higher type of accommodation is offered from the Departmental Pool in lieu of lower type of accommodation of General Pool. Moreover, Rule 40 (iii) of the GPRA Rules, 2017 provides that in case of transfer of an ineligible office in the same Station, retention may be allowed for two months on normal license fees and additional six months on double license fees. Since the Office of Department of Post is an ineligible office for allotment of General Pool Residential Accommodation, the allotment in favour of the appellant was cancelled but was allowed six months retention on medical grounds. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Litigation Section for initiation of eviction proceedings.
14. It is further explained that flat in Vivek Vihar, near Jhilmil Colony, Delhi, offered by the Respondent No. 2 was not accepted as it not centrally located. Likewise, flat in Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi was not accepted in view of proposed demolition of flats on account of redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar. It is submitted that no offer of Type-III Quarter in central area was made and the Inter Pool PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 7 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others Exchange could not be permitted. On merits, it is submitted that all the correspondences are the matter of record.
15.Respondents No. 2 to 4 were served, but none appeared on their behalf.
16.Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the flat in question was regularised in his name in the year 1999 after the demise of his father. It has been further argued that despite offering higher type of flat in lieu of present premises the same has been wrongly rejected by the Respondent No. 1/Directorate of Estates. It is claimed that the order of eviction has been wrongly made against the appellant and same is liable to be set-aside.
17.Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has argued that the allotment of flat was done and eviction has been sought in accordance with the policy of the Respondent No. 1. There is no infirmity in the Eviction Order of the Estate Officer and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18.I have heard the arguments and perused the record. My observations are as under:
19.It is an admitted case that the flat in question was earlier allotted to Sh. A. K. Mondal, father of the appellant. However, he died and flat was cancelled in March, 1998 but the appellant got appointed as Lower Division Clerk with the Respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 11.06.1998 and on his request the accommodation in the name of his father was regularised in his name. Thereafter, the appellant was PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 8 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others formally made to vacate the flat on 13.04.1999 and thereafter flat in question was finally allotted on 23.07.1999 in lieu of the flat that was originally allotted to his father which has been in his occupation since then. It is further not in dispute that in October, 2017 he was declared surplus and was transferred to Respondent No. 4 and subsequently vide letter dated 07.12.2017 he was redeployed with the Respondent No. 2. It is not refuted by the appellant that he was transferred to Respondent No. 2, which is a different Department i.e. Respondent No2 while the flat in question was allotted while he was employed with Respondent No.3. It is evident that his eligibility to the allotted flat from the pool of Respondent No. 2 was to be considered afresh and he could not claim the continuation in the suit premises as a matter of right. This was in the contemplation of the appellant and prompted him to make a letter of request to the Directorate of Estates for regularisation as admittedly the flat in question was in the General Pool Residential Accommodation. It has not been disputed that Directorate of Estates informed the appellant that as per their policy, Inter Pool Exchange is to be discouraged but could be permitted only if a flat of higher type was offered by the Department in lieu of the lower type from the General Pool Residential Accommodation. It is again not disputed that the Type-III flat was offered by the Department in Vivek Vihar, Delhi, but the same was not accepted as it was not centrally PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 9 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others located. Then Type-III flat in Sarojini Nagar was offered, but the same was also not accepted on account of redevelopment of Sarojini Nagar.
20.The exchange of various letters and correspondences between the appellant and Directorate of Estates, as well as, Respondent No. 2 Department shows that the request made on behalf of the appellant was duly considered but the same could not be acceded to by the Directorate of Estate for the reasons stated therein. The reasons given cannot be termed as arbitrary. Moreover, it is the discretion and prerogative of the Respondent No. 1 to accept the flat being offered and the appellant cannot claim any vested right and compel Directorate of Estates to accept any flat that may have been offered by the Respondent No. 2 irrespective of its suitability. The request for Inter Pool Exchange was duly considered but the flat being offered was not considered to be suitable for Inter Pool Exchange.
21.The appellant on account of his transfer to Respondent No. 4 and redeployment to Respondent No. 2 Department cannot claim as a matter of right for allotment/retention of the suit premises. The only circumstance whereby he could continue was if the Inter Pool Exchange was allowed but unfortunately that did not materialise. In the circumstances, he cannot continue to reside in the suit premises.
22.The Estate Officer had served him with the Notice under Section 4 of the Act and appellant had duly participated in PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 10 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others the eviction proceedings. The Eviction Order has been made by the Estated Officer as per law and there is no infirmity in the Eviction Order.
23.In view of above, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
24.The Record of Estate Officer be sent back along with a copy of this order.
25.Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) Court on 06.08.2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi PPA No. 10/2019 Page No. 11 of 11 Biltu Mondal vs. The Estate Officer & others