Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2304 (DEL)

MAHESH CHAND TYAGI v. DELHI JAL BOARD

2007-09-17

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st August, 2006 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the action of the respondent in passing an order of recovery of Rs. 63,499. 86 from the dearness relief payable to the appellant. The appellant had overstayed in the Government accommodation alloted to him despite his retirement from service on 30. 9. 1995 till 25. 9. 1999, when possession of the said house was taken pursuant to an order passed by the estate Officer. ( 2 ) THE Assistant Commissioner (Land and Estate) of the respondent passed an administrative order on 19. 7. 1999 seeking recovery of charges for the aforesaid period of occupation including the water charges totaling Rs. 63,499. 86. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant raised an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the legality of the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the dearness relief of his pension. ( 4 ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid Award of the Tribunal filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order on the ground that the Estate officer appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)Act, 1971 alone has the power and jurisdiction to assess and determine the amount of damages and the said amount cannot be recovered and adjusted from the pension or DA payable by way of an administrative order. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge considered the submissions made before him and held that the deduction of the penal rent for the period when the employee had withheld the residential accommodation causing loss to the employer was justified. It was also held by him that adjustment of Government dues payable by the appellant could be made against retiral benefits. As against the said findings recorded, the present appeal is filed. ( 6 ) COUNSEL appearing for appellant has submitted before us that there is a dispute with regard to the period of unauthorised occupation and on the question of date of retirement. She also disputes the manner in which the assessment and determination of the damages was made by the respondent. However, during the course of the arguments counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. She also disputes the manner in which the assessment and determination of the damages was made by the respondent. However, during the course of the arguments counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 35,000/- in all which stands already deducted by the respondent from his retiral benefits, as full and final settlement of all claims of the respondent. ( 7 ) THE appellant was a class-IV employee and he had retired from service as per the respondent in 1995. He is a senior citizen, with pension being his source of income in the old age. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that Rs. 35,000/- which is already deducted by the respondent from retirement benefits of the appellant would be just and appropriate amount of damages, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the aforesaid position, we direct that Rs. 35,000/- in lump sum shall be payable by the appellant to the respondent towards damages etc. for unauthorised occupation for the entire period during which the appellant was in unauthorised occupation of the aforesaid premises. As the respondent has already made some deductions, extra amount over Rs. 35,000/-, if any, shall be paid by the respondents within a period of six weeks from today failing which the same shall carry over interest @ 9% per annum. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal stands disposed of. ( 8 ) WE also make it clear that this order directing for payment of only rs. 35,000/- against the demand of Rs. 63,499. 86 is made considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the appellant was a class-IV employee and he had some service disputes with regard to his conditions of service with the respondent. In that view of the matter, this case shall not be considered as a precedence of binding nature in any other matter.