AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Advocate Mr. R. V. Desai appeared on behalf of petitioners. Mr. H. C. Raval learned advocate appeared on behalf of respondent
Corporation. In the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent of illegal deduction of house rent
allowance economic rent and recovery of the electricity charges clearly in contravention of the settled policy of Corporation. The drivers and
conductors of Gandhinagar Depot were offered allotment of quarters on conditions that, the workers are required to pay economic rent which was
fixed at Rs. 400/-. It is submitted by the petitioners that this was the understanding arrived at between the Corporation and the Union of the
petitioners. However, the Corporation has in addition to the economic rent that has been claimed by the Corporation, in view of the understanding
further deducted the house rent allowance of Rs. 700/- per month approximately from all the petitioners who were offered the accommodation by
the Corporation. The question relating to deducted H.R.A. is challenged by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 6686 of 1999. The said
Special Civil Application is pending before this Court. It is further pointed out by the petitioners that the offer was made by Divisional Controller,
Ahmedabad for the quarters at Gandhinagar. The petitioners after receiving the said offer refused in writing the offer of allotment of
accommodation and request was made by the petitioners that in view of the economic burden they are not in a position to run the family and
therefore, they are not willing to accept the offer of the housing accommodation provided by the Corporation. It is also pointed out by the
petitioners that in spite of the facts in writing the offer of allotment of quarters has been refused by the petitioners. Even though, the respondent No.
1 has deducted the economic rent and not paid the H.R.A. and also recovered the electricity charges from the salary of the petitioners, though the
petitioners never accepted the offer and obtained possession of the respective quarters. Therefore, present petitions are filed challenging the
deduction of economic rent and electricity charges from the wages of the petitioners along with the petition Annexure A has been produced with
the detail of each petitioners mentioning their designation, badge No., amount of economic rent, electricity charges and total deduction from the
wages of each petitioner by the Corporation. After verifying Annexure A according to the petitioners, the Corporation has deducted economic rent
of the said quarters which was offered to the petitioners and also electricity charges and total deduction comes around Rs. 600/- to 900/- and in
one case it comes to Rs. 1600/- in case of Shri N. D. Jani, Helper mechanic. Against that the Union of the petitioners has written a letter dated
13th September, 1999 to the Divisional Controller, S.T., Ahmedabad and pointed out that none of the petitioners has accepted the offer for
allotment of quarters and not obtained actual possession of the said quarters. In spite of that fact, the Corporation has illegally without informing the
petitioners deducted the economic rent for two months along with electrical charges which is illegal, unauthorized and contrary to the conditions of
allotment letter. According to the petitioners, the Corporation has not given any reply to the letter dated 13th September, 1999 of the Union. The
petitioners have produced on record one copy of allotment letter of quarters in favour of one of the petitioners Shri C. V. Parmar, conductor
Badge No. 4200 by offer letter dated 29th May, 1999. In the said allotment letter there are terms and conditions from 1 to 31 at Annexure C to
the petition. Annexure D produced by the petitioners letter dated 3rd June, 1999 by Shri C. V. Parmar wherein, the offer of allotment has been
refused by the petitioner Shri C. V. Parmar. Therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Desai who appeared on behalf of the petitioners has pointed out
that respondent Corporation has offered the quarters to the petitioners by allotment letter dated 29th May, 1999 and according to the terms and
conditions of the said allotment item No. 2 which has been pointed out by Mr. Desai that, possession of quarters is required to be obtained by the
petitioners from the date of allotment or within 15 days from the date on which the quarters are found to be vacant. Rent of the said quarters are
required to be paid by the employee from the date of these allotment order or from the date on which the possession has been obtained, Out of
two whichever is later from that day the rent is required to be started and accordingly the liability of employee for paying rent will be started. It is
further mentioned in the said terms that if any employee is not willing to accept the possession of quarters then in such circumstances the employee
concerned has to inform in writing for such intention within 15 days from the date of receiving the allotment order. If, these conditions are strictly
satisfied and observed or complied by the concerned employee then employee is not liable to pay any rent for such quarters. Even in case of
reasonable cause there is a delay in occupying the quarters in such event it should have to be informed to the office in writing and required to obtain
permission from the office. Except the above circumstances, if within the stipulated period, the quarters are not occupied by the employees then
allotment letter or order shall have to be cancelled by the Corporation. Mr. Desai has also pointed out other terms of the allotment order item No.
17 wherein, it is mentioned that if any employee in pursuance to the allotment order has not occupied the quarters within 15 days or any other
reason and if offer of allotment has been refused then, in such circumstances, the name of employee concerned shall have to be cancelled from the
waiting list and he shall not be entitled thereafter, for allotment of any quarters within a period of six months or one year or subsequently shall have
to apply as a fresh candidate. Mr. Desai has further pointed out that as per the item No. 27 of the allotment order, the liability of paying economic
rent will start from the date of having taken actual possession of such quarters by such employee and in such event two months economic rent is
required to be deducted from the salary of such employee in advance. Mr. Desai has submitted if all these three conditions referred above are read
together then it is very clear that liability of payment of rent and electricity charges will arise after having taken actual possession of quarters by such
employee in pursuance to the order of allotment of quarters. The relevant three conditions item Nos. 2, 17 and 27 are in Gujarati, quoted as under,
which are very relevant for the determination of the issue raised in the present petition :
(Para 2 page 27, para 17 page 30 and para 27 page 32 from Annexure C are written in handwriting)
(Vernacular matter omitted)
In view of the above three conditions, Mr. Desai submitted that none of the petitioners has occupied actual possession of quarters in pursuance
to the order of allotment and not only that but, each petitioner has refused in writing to the Corporation that he does not require the possession of
quarters and said offer of allotment of quarters has been rejected by each of the petitioners within 15 days in writing after receiving the order of
allotment of quarters from the Corporation. Therefore, without occupying actual possession of quarter the liability of paying any amount of rent and
electricity charges of the said quarters does not arise, in view of the clear conditions incorporated in the allotment order and same are satisfied by
each of the petitioners. Even though, the respondent Corporation has illegally and unauthorizedly deducted two months economic rent and electric
charges from the wages of petitioners which is totally illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the conditions of allotment order.
The Learned Advocate Mr. H. C. Raval has appeared on behalf of respondent Corporation has produced affidavit-in-reply on record on behalf
of the respondents on 6th October, 1999. Mr. Raval submitted that it is indeed correct to say that at the instance of the petitioner and at the
continued persuasion of the Corporation to the State authorities, ultimately the drivers and condutors were offered allotment of small flats which
were originally belonging to the Government of Gujarat. It is pertinent to note that because of the persuasion of the employees and their
representations, the State Government allotted 200 flats to the Corporation with a condition that the Corporation shall collect rent for the said
quarters and deposit the rent with the Government. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the said direction of the Government, initially 200
quarters were allotted but since certain employees were belonging to Ahmedabad Depot they were not falling within the city limits of Gandhinagar,
and hence their cases were not considered and actual possession of only 142 quarters was taken by the Corporation from the Government. In fact
an amount of Rs. 1,28,000/- were deposited by the Corporation with the Government for 160 quarters but possession of only 142 quarters was
taken. It is pertinent to note that whether an employee has actually taken possession of the quarter or not the Corporation will have to pay rent to
the Government of the quarters which are taken possession of by the Corporation. After taking possession of 142 quarters since all the quarters
were on the third floor, only 55 employees took actual possession and are residing in the quarters whereas 13 employees took possession and
gave it back. It is pertinent to note that out of 142 quarters, 55 employees are actually occupying quarters, 13 of them took actual possession of
the quarters but they gave it back whereas 74 employees gave a letter on receipt of the allocation letter saying that they do not wish to take
possession of the quarter. Mr. Raval submitted that the petition is preferred only by 52 employees and the facts such as the date on which they
took possession, whether they have taken actual possession, reasons for not accepting the possession, etc., are different and hence this general
petition is not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that each of workmen while applying for quarters has signed a form which consisted of various
conditions. On 11-5-1999, 74 quarters were handed over and on 12-5-1999, 68 quarters were handed over by the Government to the
Corporation whereas possession of 74 unoccupied quarters after requisite correspondence between the Government and Corporation was handed
over back to the Government during the period ranging from 27-8-1999 to 31-8-1999. It is further pertinent to note that 13 workmen have
handed over possession of the quarters to the Government directly as they had taken possession but later on did not wish to keep the possession.
He submitted that the approach on the part of the employees is irresponsible because they approached the Government for quarters and when the
quarters are allotted they are not accepting the same because the said quarters are situated on the third floor. It is further pertinent to note that the
Corporation is thus liable to pay rent of 142 quarters from May, 1999 to August, 1999 to the Government irrespective of the fact as to whether
they are occupied by the employees or not. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have categorically submitted that it was because of their
representation only that the Government allocated the quarters. They applied for quarters to the Corporation and as per para 7 each of the
employees was supposed to issue one month notice but none of them issued such notice and hence they are liable to pay the rent to the
Government and the Corporation is entitled to deduct the same from the salary of the concerned employees.
As far as the electricity charges are concerned, when the Corporation gave back the possession of the quarters to the Government, it was
insisted upon by the Government that unless and until electricity charges in respect of each and every quarters are fully paid, the Government will
not accept the quarter back and in view of this the Corporation is deducting those charges which the Corporation is liable to pay to the
Government and thus the Corporation is entitled to take the same/recover the same from the salaries of the concerned workmen.
Mr. Raval further submits that the Corporation is deducting/recovering only that amount which the Corporation is bound to pay to the
Government i.e., rent from the date on which the Government handed over the quarters to the Corporation till the date on which the Corporation
handed over the quarters to the State Government and nothing more.
In view of the submissions of Mr. Raval that, because of allotment of such quarters and non accepting by the petitioners ultimately the real
sufferer is the Corporation who has paid rent to the State Government for occupying 142 quarters from May, 1999 to August, 1999. He further
submitted that initially at the time of actual possession obtained by the Corporation in respect of 142 quarters, the Corporation has deposited Rs.
1,28,000/- with the Government. According to him, the possession of said quarter has been obtained by the Corporation for the benefit of
petitioners and therefore, in such an event when petitioners refused to accept the allotment of quarters then in such circumstances, the Corporation
being a public body should not be put to loss, and therefore, the amount which has been paid by the Corporation to the State Government (sic).
Therefore, Corporation has deducted the economic rent and electric charges from the petitioners. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in deducting
such amount of the rent from the salary of the petitioners. Even though, the petitioners have not accepted the offer of the allotment.
Mr. Raval at the time of submission has produced on record, a statement in respect of 142 quarters allotted to each employee alongwith the
details of quarter number, sector number, date of allotment order and date of refusing allotment order, deposit and deduction of economic rent. In
the said statement Shri C. V. Parmar which is at serial No. 64 in the said statement, the date of allotment order when 29th May, 1999 and date of
refusing such allotment is 3rd June, 1999. So, within 15 days Shri Parmar has refused the allotment. Name of each petitioner started from C. V.
Parmar at serial No. 64 to serial No. 113, the name of each petitioners are there and details has been given by the Corporation. In the present
case, the two details are necessary, one is date of allotment order and date of refusal by such employee. In almost case of each petitioners from
date of allotment order, the refusal by the petitioners is within 15 days. The said statement prepared by Corporation is produced before this Court.
I have heard both the learned advocates and I have also perused the order of allotment and all conditions of the allotment order and I also
perused the statement which has been produced by the learned advocate Mr. Raval on behalf of Corporation giving complete details in respect to
142 quarters which has been offered by the Corporation and what happened to offer and deduction of economic rent and electric charges from the
salary of each petitioners. The details of each petitioner in the statement from serial No. 64 to 113. I have perused all the details in respect to each
petitioner as pointed out in the statement and it is clear from the statement that, after receiving the allotment order from the respondent Corporation
within a period of 15 days in writing each petitioner had refused the said offer of allotment and informed to the concerned authority. These are
factual details in respect to each petitioner which are mentioned in the details statements produced by the Corporation.
Now, in light of the details which are on record if, I consider the condition Nos. 2, 17 and 27 of order of allotment in favour of petitioners then it
is very clear from the terms and conditions that liability of economic rent will be started if petitioners actually, occupy the quarters from the
Corporation. The possession of quarter is required to be occupied by employee. The liability of rent will be started from the date of allotment
order or from the date of having actual possession of quarters. Out of two whichever is later from that date, the employee is liable to pay rent of
such quarters. However, it is made clear in the said terms and conditions that it any employee does not want the possession of such quarters then
he shall have to inform in writing within 15 days from the date of receiving the order of allotment. If the said procedure is properly followed by the
employee then he will not be liable for payment of rent of such quarters. The item No. 17 provides that if within 15 days the actual possession is
not occupied then in such event or if allotment of quarter is not accepted it will be cancelled from the waiting list. The item No. 27 is a authorization
in writing by the employee who has been given order of allotment of quarters who agree by written authorization to deduct the economic rent and
two months advanced economic rent from the salary of such employee from the date of on which the actual possession of the quarters occupied by
such employee. So, liability of paying rent from the wages the Corporation is authorized to deduct the rent from the wages of such employee
depends upon important fact that such deduction from the salary from the date on which the employee concerned actually occupied the possession
of quarter not prior to that. Therefore, Corporation has no power to deduct the amount of rent from the salary of the petitioner when petitioners
leave not occupied and having actual possession received from the Corporation. In view of item No. 27, the item No. 27 is authorization of
employee in writing in favour of Corporation to deduct the economic rent of such quarters which has been actually occupied and is in possession of
such employee otherwise Corporation is not entitled to deduct any amount of rent from the petitioners because except item No. 27 there is no
separate and independent authorization given by petitioners in favour of Corporation except which is specified in item No. 27 of order of allotment.
Therefore, Corporation has no power to deduct the rent from the wages of petitioners beyond the terms of authorization as given by such
petitioners as per item No. 27 of said allotment order. Therefore, after considering the allotment orders and terms and conditions of the said
allotment order and reply of the Corporation and statements produced by Corporation in respect to each petitioner. I am of the opinion that
Corporation has unauthorisedly and without any legal authorization has deducted the economic rent and electric charges from the salary of
petitioners when petitioners in fact have not obtained the actual possession of quarters as per allotment order and within 15 days from the date of
receiving the allotment order. Each of the petitioners has refused the offer of allotment in writing and communication to the concerned authority and
therefore, considering the terms and conditions of allotment order item Nos. 2, 17 and 27 read together, such deduction of economic rent and
electric charges from the salary of each petitioner are illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized and contrary to the terms and conditions of allotment order.
Therefore, each petition is required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside, such deduction of economic rent and electric charges as specified
in respect of each petitioner at Annexure A page 20 of Special Civil Application No. 7228 of 1999 and it is directed to the respondent
Corporation to pay back said amount which has been deducted by the Corporation from the salary of each petitioner within a period of one month
from the date of receiving the certified copy of the said order.
Mr. Raval has submitted that after all in such situation the real sufferer is the public body who has paid the advance amount to the State
Government which comes to Rs. 1,28,000/- Mr. Raval is right. Ultimately the Corporation has paid the amount to the State Government in
occupying the 142 quarters from the State Government in benefit of employees of Corporation. The Corporation is an employer and it is duty of
the Corporation to act in accordance with law in respect to any deduction if it is required to be made from the wages of employees. Therefore, in
present case, the action of respondent-Corporation in deducting the economic rent and electric charges from the wages of petitioners without
obtaining actual possession and when, refusing the offer of allotment is not in accordance with law and same is arbitrary but, however, it is open for
the Corporation in such situation to represent the State Government about loss caused to the Corporation and if such representation is made by the
Corporation to the State Government then in peculiar fact of this case, the State Government will consider such representation sympathetically.
In view of above observation and clear finding that respondent Corporation has in illegal, unauthorized, arbitrary manner and contrary to the
terms and conditions of allotment order deducted the economic rent and electric charges from the salary of each petitioner is required to be
quashed and set aside and it is directed to the Corporation to pay the deducted amount in respect of economic rent and electric charges deducted
from the salary of each petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. Each petition is allowed
and rule is made absolute in each petition with no order as to costs. Office is directed to send the writ of said order immediately to the respondent
Corporation.
Petitions allowed.