Dismissed

Rama Kant Dwivedi v. Cat Allahabad and Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019WRIA/41550/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the recovery of penal rent from a retired postman who had over-stayed in government accommodation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the status of the respondent as an unauthorized occupant was final and reliefs in labour judgments did not apply.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; recovery of penal rent of Rs. 3,19,956.50 directed to continue.

Rama Kant Dwivedi Vs Cat Allahabad and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41550 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dwivedi Respondent :- C.A.T. Allahabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Krishna Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., B.N. Singh, Rizwan Ahmad, S.C., V.K.Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shiv Krishna Bahadur, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for respondents- 2 to 4.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed assailing judgement and order dated 30.04.2008 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as “OA”) No. 320 of 2004 whereby petitioner's OA has been dismissed by Tribunal.

¶8

Petitioner was working as Postman and posted at Kanpur. Admittedly, he was never allotted any Government accommodation but as per the case set up by petitioner, Postmaster allowed him to occupy Government Quarter No. 5, Type- 2 situated at Anwarganj, Post Office Compound, Kanpur on 01.04.1983. Rent of quarter was also deducted from his salary for three months and thereafter it was stopped. Estate Officer of Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow considered status of petitioner occupying aforesaid Government accommodation and vide order dated 03.07.1985 declared petitioner “unauthorized occupant” in said accommodation, for more than two years and, therefore, directed him to vacate premises within fifteen days. It has also directed Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Kanpur to ensure vacation of said accommodation from petitioner and charge due penal rent as per Rules.

¶9

Petitioner, however, continued to occupy said accommodation

¶10

¶11

and vacated only on 31^st July, 2000 and that is how, he remained in possession of accommodation in question for a period of more than fifteen years from the date of order passed by Estate Officer.

¶12

Respondents-Authorities have sought to recover penal rent from petitioner from various dues payable to petitioner on retirement and passed orders for recovery of same.

¶13

Petitioner filed OA No. 1309 of 2002 stating that Rs. 1,000/- has been deducted from his salary without their being any order of recovery. Said OA was disposed of vide judgement dated 12.11.2002 permitting petitioner to make a representation and RespondentAuthority was directed to decide the same by a speaking order and till representation is decided, recovery was stayed.

¶14

Consequently, Chief Postmaster, Kanpur passed order dated 13.02.2003 stating that recovery of Rs. 3000/-, already made from petitioner, has to be refunded to him.

¶15

A show-cause notice was issued to petitioner by Chief Postmaster, Kanpur on 26.02.2003 stating that a total sum of Rs. 3,19,956/- was due against him towards penal rent, damage charges, electricity charges etc., and petitioner was directed to submit objection if any. The relevant extract of notice dated 26.02.2003 reads as under:-

¶16

^^1Mhih, @vkbZvkj@01@vkbVe ua- 13 ¼lh½ o"kZ 01&02 rFkk Mh&1 @ vkmV gkml@ 01&02 @ dsih,pvks fnukad 27-11-2001 ds vuqlkj vkids Åij bysfDVd pktZ dk VksVy M;wt :0 23]134 @& dkgS ftlesa ls fnlEcj 2001 ls fnlEcj&2002 rd :0 1000@& dh nj ls :0 13000@& dh dVkSrh dh x;h gS rFkk vHkh :0 10]134@& dh dVkSrh 'ks"k gSA

¶17

2- Mhih, @vkbZvkj@01@vkbVe ua- 13 ¼lh½ o"kZ 2001 ds vuqlkj Msest pktZ dk :0 291177@& M~;wt gS] ftlesa vxLr 2002 ls fnlEcj 2002 rd :0 1000@& dh nj ls :0 5000@& dh fjdojh dh x;h gS rfkk vHkh : 0 186177@& dh dVkSrh 'ks"k gSA

¶18

3- ,lh @vkbZ vkj@ dsih,pvks @ 1999 &dsih&1fn0 16-6-2000 vkbZVe ua0 6 ¼11½ ,.M Mhih, @vkbZvkj@99@ ds vuqlkj ,p0vkj0,0 dk dqy ns; :0 51]645&50 gS] ftlesa :0 1000@& dh nj ls flrEcj 2000 ls fnlEcj 2002 rd :0 28000@& dh dVkSrh dh x;h gS rFkk vHkh :0 23]645&50 dh

¶19

¶20

dVkSrh dh tkuh gSA bl rjg ls vkids Åij vc dqy :0 10134&00 + :0] 286177&00 + :0 23645&50 :0 319]956&00 dh dVkSrh 'ks"k gS tks bl dk;kZy; }kjk vHkh vHkh dh tkuh gSA mijksDr ls Li"V gS fd lHkh fjdojh vkfMV }kjk fudkyh xbZ ftls jksduk bl dk;kZy; }kjk lEHko ugha gSA

¶21

;fn bl lEcU/k esa vkidks dksbZ vkifRr gS rks bl izkfIr ds ,d lIrkg ds vUnj bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsa] vU;Fkk ;g ekurs gq, fd vkidks bl izdj.k esa dqN Hkh ugha dguk gS] bl dk;kZy; }kjk mDr jde :0 3]19]956&50 olwy djus dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA**

¶22

“1- As per DPA/IR/01/Item No. 13 (C) Year 01-02 and D-1/Out House/01-02/KPHO dated 27.11.2001, you have total Rs. 23,134 as dues for electric charge, out of which Rs. 13000/have been deducted at the rate of Rs. 1000/- from December 2001 to December 2002 and Rs. 10,134/- are yet to be deducted.

¶23

2- As per DPA/IR/01/Item No. 13 (C) Year 2001, Rs. 291177/- are due for damage charge, out of which Rs. 5000/have been recovered at the rate of Rs. 1000/- from August 2002 to December 2002 and Rs. 186177/- are yet to be deducted.

¶24

3- As per AC/IR/KPHO/ 1999-KP-1 dated 16.06.2000, Item No. 6 (11) and DPA/IR/99/, total Rs. 51,645-50 are due for HRA, out of which Rs. 28000/- have been deducted at the rate of Rs. 1000/- from September 2000 to December 2002 and Rs. 23,645-50 are yet to be deducted. In this way, now there is an amount of total Rs. 10134-00 + Rs. 286177-00 + Rs. 23645-50 (= ?) Rs. 319,956-00 as dues on you, which are yet to be deducted by this Office. It is evident from the aforesaid that all the recovery have been calculated by way of audit, which cannot be stopped by this office.

¶25

If you have any objection in this regard, the same be produced in this Office within one week after it is received, otherwise presuming it that you have nothing to say in this matter, the proceeding to recover the aforesaid amount Rs. 3,19,956-50 shall be conducted by this Office.”

¶26

(English Translation by Court) 9. Petitioner claimed to have filed objection on 08.03.2003 and also made a representation dated 10.03.2003 to Chief Postmaster, Kanpur. Ultimately, Chief Postmaster, Kanpur passed order dated 21.01.2004 informing petitioner that a total sum of Rs. 3,91,956/- has to be recovered from him and, therefore, deduction from his salary

¶27

¶28

shall commence from December, 2002 to January, 2003. The relevant extract of letter dated 21.01.2004 reads as under:-

¶29

^^di;k vius i=kad %& ys[kk @ ,Mokal @ dkuiqj 01 fnukad 15-22003 dk voyksdu djs rFkk jekdkUr f}osnh lkfVZax iksLVeSu eq[; Mkd?kj dkuiqj ds osru HkRrksa ls gks jgh dVkSrh dh vo'ks"k jkf'k tks fuEuor gS] ekg tuojh 2004 ls deZpkjh ds osru HkRrs ls dkVuk iqu% pkyw dj nsa rFkk dr dk;Zokgh ls ml dk;kZy; dks voxr djk;sA

¶30

1- bysfDV~d pktsZt en esa vo'ks"k jkf'k :0 10]134@&

¶31

2- M~est pktsZt en esa vo'ks"k jkf'k :0 286]177@&

¶32

3- ,p0vkj0,0 en esa vo'ks"k jkf'k :0 23]645&50

¶33

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

¶34

dqy vo's"k jkf'k :0 3]19]956&50

¶35

ekg fnlEcj 2002 rFkk tuojh 2003 ds deZpkjh ds osru HkRrs ls dh x;h dVkSrh ;fn mls okil dh x;h rks iqu% dVkSrh lqfuf'pr djsaA**

¶36

“Kindly peruse your letter:- Account / Advance/ Kanpur, 01 Dated 15.2.2003, and resume deduction of the rest of the amount, being deducted from the pay and allowances of Ramakant Dwivedi, Sorting Postman, Head Post Office Kanpur as bellow, from the pay and allowances of the employee from January 2004, and inform that Office about the action taken.

¶37

1- Balance amount under the head of electric charges Rs. 10,134/-

¶38

2- Balance amount under the head of damage charges Rs. 286,177/-

¶39

3- Balance amount under the head of H.R.A. Rs. 23,645-50

¶40

Total balance amount : Rs. 3,19,956-50

¶41

Ensure re-deduction, if the deduction made from the pay and allowances of the employee for December 2002 and January 2003 was returned to him.”

¶42

(English Translation by Court) 10. Another order was passed by Chief Postmaster on 28.01.2008 on petitioner's representation stating that he was an “unauthorized occupant” of accommodation in question and as per Estate Officer's order, he was liable to pay penal rent etc.

¶43

The orders dated 21.01.2004 and 26.02.2003 were challenged by petitioner before Tribunal in OA No. 320 of 2004 which has been dismissed vide judgement and order dated 30.04.2008 on the ground

¶44

¶45

that order of Estate Officer passed under Section 5(1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1971”) having become final and petitioner was declared unauthorized occupant of accommodation in question and, therefore, respondents were entitled to recover penal rent, damages etc., from petitioner.

¶46

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner not only occupied accommodation with permission of Post Master but rent was also deducted and, therefore, he could not have been treated “unauthorized occupant”. We are afraid that this aspect cannot be looked into by the Court for the reason that petitioner was already declared “unauthorized occupant” by statutory Authority in exercise of statutory power under Act, 1971 vide order dated 03.07.1985 and said order attained finality as no appeal was preferred against said order by petitioner. Even Tribunal had no Authority or jurisdiction to interfere with said order of Prescribed Authority passed under Act, 1971 for the reason that said order was appeallable before District Judge concerned under the provisions of Act, 1971 and Tribunal had no jurisdiction to look into correctness of the order in question. Be that as it may, the fact is that order passed by Estate Officer attained finality since it was not challenged by any appropriate forum.

¶47

It is further contended by learned counsel for petitioner that recovery from “gratuity” of petitioner could not have been made. He placed reliance in Chandra Prakash Jain Vs. Principal/DIG, Police Training College-II, Moradabad 2003 (12) SCC 173 and submit that the “over staying” in Government accommodation, he ought not to have been saddled with the liability of penal rent.

¶48

We have gone through the aforesaid judgement and find that the same has no application in the present case for the reason that petitioner was already declared an “unauthorized occupant” by Prescribed Authority in exercise of power under Section 5 of Act,

¶49

¶50

1971 and that order attained finality. Despite that order, petitioner continued in possession of accommodation for almost fifteen years. Aforesaid order has to take its consequences and petitioner cannot avoid or evade those consequences. The judgement in question does not apply to the facts of the case in hand.

¶51

Further, petitioner has also placed reliance on various High Court's judgement in Ramjilal Chimanlal Sharma vs. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Mill Co. Ltd. 1984 LabIC 1703; Bharath Gold Mines Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner 1987 (1) LLN 303; Rajendra Pai H Vs. Canara Bank and Another 1998 (78) FLR 650; Management of Bharat Motors N R Pvt. Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli 1998 (1) LLJ 907; Air India Limited vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act 1999 (81) FLR 900; Mathew KC vs. Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Another 2000 (2) LLJ 637; J B Micheal Dsouza Vs. Appellate Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore 2002 (92) FLR 1200; Amod Prasad Rai vs. State of U.P. and Another 2009 (123) FLR 202 and Union of India and others Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and Another 2014 (2) UPLBEC 1549.

¶52

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as also gone through the entire judgments relied by counsel for petitioner, we do not find that the facts stated in aforesaid judgments have any application in the case in hand.

¶53

In view thereof, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶54

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Rama Kant Dwivedi v. Cat Allahabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Kant Dwivedi v. Cat Allahabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.K. Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Rashmi Saxena Vs State Public Service Tribunal and Others

Union of India and Another Vs Mathura Prasad Sharma and Another

State of U.P. and Others Vs U.P.Public Service Tribunal Lko. and Another

Union of India and Others Vs Indrajeet and Others

Smt. Shashi Bala Vs Rajendrapal Singh