Dismissed

Union of India and Ors. v. Deepak Kumar

Delhi HC2 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11393/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding routine maintenance allotment of a railway quarter. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's judgment which found the agency's delay in acting on a subletting report unreasonable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the Tribunal's order dated 21st March, 2016 is upheld.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Deepak Kumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~27.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11393/2016

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through Mr. Amitava Poddar, Advocate. versus DEEPAK KUMAR ..... Respondent Through Nemo.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶7

O R D E R % 02.12.2016

¶8

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Union of India in this writ petition, which impugns the order dated 21^st March, 2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) in OA No. 1706/2013 filed by Deepak Kumar, the respondent before us.

¶9

Respondent‟s father was also a railway employee and was allotted Quarter No. 165/1, Railway Colony, Thomson Road, Delhi. The respondent was staying with his father and was not drawing House Rent Allowance (HRA) from the date of joining on 13^th August, 2007. The respondent‟s father had made an application dated 22^nd October, 2009 requesting the authorities to grant permission to share the quarter with the respondent, which permission was granted vide order dated 24^th February, 2010. Subsequently, the respondent had made an application requesting the authorities to regularise the allotment of the quarter in favour of the respondent as his father was to retire from service on 28^th February, 2010.

¶10

The respondent did not receive any reply from the authorities despite writing a number of letters between 13^th March, 2010 to 25^th March, 2013. 4. The petitioner after about three years vide their letter dated 5^th April, 2013 informed the respondent that the premises in question was checked by subletting team on 30^th September, 2009 and the premises was found to be “partly” sublet and occupied by Anil son of Suraj.

¶11

The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the factual matrix and noticed that Anil son of Suraj has not signed the subletting form. The Tribunal has recorded that the accommodation allotted to the respondent‟s father was a one room tenement. The charge of “partly” sublet, in the said situation was incongruous and perplexing. It is further stated that inspection was in 2009, but till 2013 no order of cancellation of allotment was passed. We are rather surprised that once there was a report regarding partial subletting, the petitioner authorities had kept quiet for four years. The Tribunal keeping in view several aspects, some of which have been recorded above, has taken a holistic and reasonable view.

¶12

We do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.

¶13

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶14

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶15

DECEMBER 02, 2016 VKR

Union of India and Ors. v. Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Deepak Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs Food Corporation of India & or

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax

Manoj Kumar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Jai Karan and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner Sadar Paharganj Zone and Ors.

Rishabh Jain Vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation

Etisha Vs Chairman Central Board of Secondary Education

M/S Shive Extrusions Vs Ram Bahadur

State of Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India and Anr.

U. Rai Arya Vs Union of India and Anr.

Atul Sood Vs Delhi Police & Anr.

Union of India & Anr. Vs Anand Singh

S.S. Kashikar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Seema Ojha & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.