Sunita Sharma vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuing a writ of certiorari, quashing the rejection letter dated 29.05.1996 issued by the respondent, rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of Quarter No. 1893, Timarpur, Delhi and for quashing of the eviction order dated 04.07.1996.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, Sh.Amar Kishan who was working as an Assistant in the High Court of Delhi, sought premature retirement and thereafter, voluntarily retired from the service w.e.f. 19.08.1986. Prior thereto, on 18.04.1986, the petitioner was given an appointment as LDC in the High Court of Delhi on compassionate grounds. As the petitioner was residing with her father as a member of the family in the aforesaid government accommodation, she applied to the respondent for regularization of the said quarter in her name, vide her representation dated 15.01.1987, in terms of office memorandum dated 01.05.1981. However, the respondent did not take any action on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner on the ground that the allotment file was not available in the department. In the meantime, on 30.05.1987, the petitioner was relieved from her duties by the respondent No. 4. However, she was taken back in service w.e.f. 24.10.1987 and thereafter, she continues to remain in uninterrupted service till date. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that ever since her joining service with the respondent No. 4, the petitioner has continued to reside in the aforesaid government accommodation and the same is the position even today. He further states that the petitioner has also not drawn any house rent allowance.

After the petitioner was taken back in service on 24.10.1987, she made a representation dated 01.12.1987 addressed to the respondent No. 2 requesting him to regularize the staff quarter in her name. After a time lag of almost nine years, vide letter dated 29.05.1996, the respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 4 that the request of the petitioner for regularization of the staff quarter in her favour was rejected on account of break in her service w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to 23.10.1987. On 02.12.1987, the father of the petitioner expired and the petitioner continued to reside in the said premises with her widowed mother. After a gap of about five years from the date the petitioner made a representation to regularize the staff quarter in her favour, the respondent No. 3 issued a notice to show cause dated 28.04.1992 addressed to the deceased father of the petitioner, informing him that the allotment of the government accommodation in his favour stood cancelled w.e.f. 19.12.1986, as intimated vide letter dated 15.01.1987. He was, therefore, called upon to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the government accommodation. Subsequent thereto, after over four years from the date of issue of notice to show cause, the respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 4.7.1996, u/s 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 addressed to the family of late Shri Amar Kishan, calling upon them to vacate the staff quarter within 15 days from the date of publication of the order of eviction.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection letter dated 29.05.1996 and order dated 04.07.1996 issued by the respondents No. 1 to 3, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complete silence maintained by the respondents on the application of the petitioner for regularization for almost nine years and thereafter the refusal to regularize the staff quarter in her favour, is extremely unfair and arbitrary, particularly, since the petitioner has been allowed to remain in the aforesaid premises, even after the demise of her father. He submits that in case the respondents No. 1 to 3 were of the opinion that the government accommodation could not have been regularized in favour of the petitioner, they should not only have taken appropriate steps by cancelling the allotment in question that existed on the records in favour of the father of the petitioner, but should also have demanded from the petitioner penal rent for the period in question i.e., w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to 23.10.1987. Having chosen to remain silent throughout for a period of nine years and having failed to take a decision on the pending representation made by the petitioner in the year 1987, the petitioner cannot be confronted with the aforesaid order of rejection. He urges that the aforesaid order has caused great injustice to the petitioner, more so when she was taken back in service by respondent No. 4, w.e.f. 24.10.1987 and has remained in service uninterrupted till date. He submits that even otherwise, the respondents failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner is entitled to a residential government accommodation in her own right and on this ground also, the rejection letter is liable to be quashed.

Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the respondent could not act on the request of the petitioner for regularization of the government accommodation on account of non availability of the allotment file within the department. She states that the said file remains untraceable even till date and that the respondent could construct part of its file based on the available documents and papers submitted by the petitioner and only on perusal of the said documents, did the respondent cancel the allotment in the name of the father of the petitioner, on his retirement from service on 19.08.1986. It is also reiterated on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 that the petitioner''s request for regularization of the government accommodation in her favour could not be acceded to as there was a break in service and hence, she has remained an unauthorized occupant of the staff quarter w.e.f. 19.12.1986 and is liable to pay damages under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly taking into consideration the fact that the respondents No. 1 to 3 chose to remain silent for a period of about nine years, in respect of the pending representation made by the petitioner on 01.12.1987, seeking regularization of the staff quarter in her favour, it has to be concluded that to saddle the petitioner with damages on the strength of the rejection letter issued after about nine years, i.e., on 29.05.1996 would cause great injustice and hardship to the petitioner. If the respondents No. 1 to 3 were not inclined to favourably consider the request of the petitioner for regularization of the staff quarters in her name, it was incumbent upon them to intimate their decision to the petitioner within a reasonable time, so that the liability of paying damages would not befall on her. Silence for a period of about nine years can by no stretch of imagination, be termed as reasonable.

It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is entitled to a government accommodation in her own right and that she has not drawn any house rent allowance for all these years. Hence, the case of the petitioner for seeking regularization in her own right should have been taken into consideration by the respondent while taking a decision on her application for regularization. Having failed to act with reasonable dispatch and having slept over the application of the petitioner for regularization for nine long years, and moreover, having failed to initiate any steps for repossession of the Government accommodation from the petitioner, the respondents No. 1 to 3 cannot be permitted to rise from their deep slumber and slap a rejection letter on the petitioner, followed by a claim damages for the period of purported unauthorized occupation. At best, the respondent could have claimed penal rent from the petitioner for the accommodation, the period w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to 23.10.1987.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 04.07.1996 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the staff quarter is quashed. The rejection letter dated 29.05.1996 is also set aside. The respondent is directed to take a fresh decision on the representation of the petitioner for being granted the staff quarter under her occupation, in her own right, as per her entitlement.

At this stage, counsel for the respondent draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 4.9.1996, whereunder the petitioner was granted an interim injunction, staying her dispossession from the staff quarter, subject to her continuing to pay rent/damages in respect of occupation of aforesaid premises. She submits that the petitioner has not paid any amount despite the aforesaid order though she has continued to remain in occupation thereof for all these years. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of rent for the staff quarter to the respondents No. 1 to 3, for the entire period for which the same has remained unpaid, i.e. w.e.f.20.12.1986, till date. The amount payable by the petitioner shall be computed by the respondent along with simple interest payable thereon @ 10% per annum with effect from the date the amounts fell due and payable, till realization. The respondents shall also calculate the penal rent payable by the petitioner for the period w.e.f.1.6.1987 to 23.10.1987. The respondents shall intimate the same to the petitioner within six weeks. The petitioner shall pay the amount within six weeks therefrom.

The writ petition is disposed of. No orders as to costs.