Allowed

Anil Kumar Mittal and Others v. Delhi Judicial Academy and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/15254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner employees challenged demand notices for triple license fee on staff quarters allotted higher than their entitlement. Court held fee charged without employee request due to non-availability is unsustainable and quashed notices, ordering refund.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices for recovery of higher fees are quashed; amounts reflected shall be refunded.

Anil Kumar Mittal and Others Vs Delhi Judicial… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~8

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15254/2022 & CM APPL. 47232/2022

¶4

ANIL KUMAR MITTAL AND OTHERS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Jacob Benny, Mr. Shashank Rai, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI JUDICIAL ACADEMY AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Zubin Singh, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Mr. Vedansh Vashisht, Advocates for Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil) for GNCTD.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

02.08.2024

The Petitioners are employees of Respondent No. 1, Delhi Judicial Academy, working at different posts such as bus drivers, caretakers/upper division clerks, photocopy machine operators, library clerk, etc. They were allotted staff quarters which are in the premises of the Delhi Judicial Academy itself. In accordance with their posts, the Petitioners were entitled to either Type-I and Type-II accommodations. However, since those were not available, they were allotted Type-III and Type-IV staff quarters, which were in surplus.

¶13

In this background, when an audit of the financial statements of Respondent No. 1 was conducted in 2019 by Respondent No. 2, the audit report advised that the Petitioners should be charged three times the normal

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

W.P.(C) 15254/2022

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/10/2024 at 11:55:32

¶17

rate as license fee since they had been allotted quarters in a higher category of accommodation. In this regard, reliance was placed on the instructions issued through Office Memorandums (OMs) dated 13^th October, 2003, 28^th October, 2010 and 12^th January, 2012 by Respondent No. 3. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant documents are extracted hereunder:

¶18

Copy of Paragraph No. 1 of the Audit Report dated 4^th November, 2019 issued by Respondent No. 2:

¶19

Copy of OM dated 13^th October, 2003:

¶20

“Subject: Recovery of licence fee from Government employees who are offered and allotted Government accommodation higher than their entitlement.

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

W.P.(C) 15254/2022

¶23

¶24

The issue regarding the quantum of licence fee to be recovered from Government employees who are allotted Government accommodation higher than their entitlement has been reconsidered. It has been decided that in all cases where due to adequate availability of quarters of a particular type, a Government employee is allotted accommodation of a type which is higher than his entitlement, only flat rate of licence fee relevant to that type of accommodation is to be charged from such allottee. However, three times the normal rate of licence fee is to be charged from those Government employees who are allotted, out-of-turn, Government accommodation of a type higher than their entitlement at their own request, despite there being no surplus quarters in that type.

¶25

2. This supersedes the Directorates' OMs of even no, dated 21.04.03 and 14.07.03.

¶26

3. This order is to be implemented w.e.f. 21.04.03.”

¶27

Copy of OM dated 28^th October, 2010:

¶28

Copy of OM dated 12^th January, 2012

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

W.P.(C) 15254/2022

¶31

¶32

The Petitioners argue that the aforenoted OMs can be applied only when there is “out of turn allotment”, i.e. wherein an accommodation of higher entitlement was allotted at the specific request of the Government servant on medical or functional grounds. They emphasise that the higher allotment was on account of non-availability of their entitled accommodation and surplus availability of higher accommodation. Therefore, only normal license fee is applicable, and the demand for three times the normal license fee is untenable and arbitrary.

¶33

Ms. Harshita Nathrani, counsel for Respondent No. 2, argues that the demand for the higher category license fee is founded on the instructions as per the aforenoted OMs as well as the objection raised in the audit report. Accordingly, she submits that since the Petitioners were provided higher

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

W.P.(C) 15254/2022

¶36

¶37

category accommodation, there must be three times the normal rates. Additionally, she states that Respondent No. 2 has decided to rely on the stand taken by Respondent No. 1. In this regard, reliance is placed on a communication dated 23^rd November, 2022, copy whereof has been handed over across the board and is taken on record.

¶38

Respondent No. 1, in their counter affidavit, has narrated the relevant facts and explained to the Court that the action for demand of higher license fee was taken pursuant to the directions of Respondent No. 2. They further point out that they had, in fact, through communication dated 27^th July, 2021, pointed out to Respondent No. 2 that the OM of 2003, was not applicable and accordingly, Paragraph No. 1 of the audit report for the year 2018-19 ought to be dropped. However, such a request was not acceptable to Respondent No. 2.

¶39

The Court has carefully perused the record as well as the documents annexed with the petition and the counter affidavit of Respondent No. 1. The OM of 2003 provides that three times of the flat rate of license fee can be charged from Government servants who are allotted accommodation of a type higher than their entitlement on their own request. However, the situation before the Court is entirely different. In the instant case, the allotments to the Petitioners of accommodation higher than their entitlement was not on their request, but rather, due to non-availability of accommodations of their grade, as expressly stated in the letters of allotment of staff quarters issued to the Petitioners. Since, Type-I and Type-II accommodations were not available with Delhi Judicial Academy, they had to shift to the National Law University Complex in the year 2014 and all the allotments of available quarters were made subsequent to the issuance of

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

W.P.(C) 15254/2022

¶42

¶43

OM of 2003, which came into effect on 21^st April, 2003. Thus, it emerges that none of the Petitioners had actually requested/ applied for the allotment of accommodation/ staff quarters of a category higher than their entitlement. In such circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the OM of 2003, which forms the basis of the objection in Paragraph No. 1 of the audit report for the year 2018-19, does not apply to the Petitioners.

¶44

In fact, it must also be noted that the Respondent No. 1 was also of the same opinion, as expressed to Respondent No. 2 through letter dated 27^th October, 2021. However, Respondent No. 2 has not agreed with such an interpretation. Be that as it may, in the opinion of the Court, the impugned notices for recovery of higher fees based on the audit report which in turn relies on the OM of 2003, cannot sustained and are accordingly are quashed. 8. If any recoveries of license fee have been reflected under the impugned notice, the same shall be refunded or adjusted from their dues. It is, however, made clear that the Petitioners shall be liable to pay the license fee commensurate with their entitlement of their allotment.

¶45

With the above directions, the present petition is disposed of accordingly along with pending applications.

¶46

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶47

AUGUST 2, 2024 ab

¶48

Page 6 of 6

¶49

W.P.(C) 15254/2022

¶50

Anil Kumar Mittal and Others v. Delhi Judicial Academy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Mittal and Others v. Delhi Judicial Academy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paper Mate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi & Ors.

Misha Textiles Private Limited (through Director) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(1) Delhi & Ors.

Smt. Savita Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited

Avinder Bindra Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Bhagwan Sahay Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others

Smt. Renu Bisht Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Avinder Bindra Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

Ishaq Mohammed and Ors. Vs Sharif Hussain and Anr.

Manju Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Chote Lal Vs Sh. Manoj Kumar and Anr.

Wg. Cdr Kunal Kumra (Retd.) Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sh. Sunil Aggarwal Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.