Joginder Singh v. Union of India Through Secretary & Anr

order dated 24.08.2022.

¶27The Appellant thereafter preferred a Review Petition and the same was also dismissed on 12.09.2022. Meaning thereby, the Appellant continued unauthorisedly in the accommodation in question though it was under the category of Key Personnel Accommodation and he was required

to vacate the same within ten days from the date of his relieving. He has failed to vacate the said accommodation and kept harping upon the fact that the said accommodation has been converted from Key Personnel Accommodation to General Pool Accommodation. The documents on record nowhere reflect that the accommodation in question was converted into General Pool Accommodation. Only recommendations were made by the Commander Works Engineer at some point of time.

¶28In the considered opinion of this Court, mere recommendation of immediate superior officer for converting the accommodation from the category of Key Personnel Accommodation to the category of General Pool Accommodation does not help the Appellant/ Petitioner in any manner. There is no document on record to establish that the accommodation in question was converted into General Pool Accommodation. On the contrary, on affidavit, the Respondents have categorically stated that the accommodation in question was under the category of Key Personnel Accommodation and continues to be under the said category.

¶29We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in upholding the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge.

¶30The Appellant before this Court has not been able to point out violation of any statutory provision of law in the matter. On the contrary, it was the Appellant who has overstayed in the Government Accommodation in spite of the fact that the Competent Authority has cancelled the allotment vide order dated 29.09.2015.

¶31In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition. No case for interference is made out in the matter.

¶32Therefore, we find no merit in the instant Appeal preferred by the Appellant and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶33The Judgement rendered by the Ld. Single Judge is upheld.

¶34The Appeal is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. NOVEMBER 29, 2022

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 29.11.2022 % JOGINDER SINGH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K Venkatraman, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Kumar Garg, Mr.Saksham Garg, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ. (ORAL) CM APPL. 51357/2022 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. LPA 686/2022 & CM APPLs. 51358-60/2022 3. The instant Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 686 of 2022 has been filed by Mr. Joginder Singh ["the Appellant"] assailing the Judgement and Order dated 24.08.2022 in W.P (C) No. 2560/2019 and 12.09.2022 passed in Review Petition No. 229/2022 ["Impugned Judgements"]. The Ld. Single Judge vide the Impugned Judgement held that the Appellant has failed to substantiate his claim that the accommodation alloted to him has been converted from a Key Personnel Accommodation to a General Pool Accommodation. As such, his plea for retention of his residence in Delhi for his family after his transfer from Delhi to Srinagar was denied. The Appellant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and for grant of reliefs prayed in the writ petition, including retention of his accommodation at Delhi and resumption of duty in an office at Delhi Cantt. 4. The facts of the case leading up to the filing of the LPA are set out hereinbelow: 5. On 01.07.2008, the Appellant, an Ex-Havildar from the Indian Army, was appointed as Lower Division Clerk ("LDC") in the Military Engineering Service ("MES") under Deputation-cum-Re-employment quota in the office of Commander Works Engineer, New Delhi. The Appellant was allocated accommodation at Qtr. No. P-56-D, Kabul Line (Type-III) ["Quarter at Delhi Cantt"] w.e.f. 19.10.2011, and he had been residing there with his family since then. Subsequently, in 2015, he was transferred from Garrison Engineer (East) Delhi Cantt to Garrison Engineer (Project), Air Force, Srinagar vide Chief Engineer, Western Command Letter No. 30313/Tenure/EIC(j) dated 20.05.2015. 6. After being posted to Garrison Engineer (Project) (Air Force) Srinagar, which is a non-family station, the Appellant applied for retention of his accommodation at his previous quarter vide Garrison Engineer (East) Delhi Cantt Letter No. 1006/Gen/29/EIA dated 08.07.2015, with due recommendation from the Garrison Engineer and Commander Works Engineer, Delhi Cantonment on 26.08.2015 whereby they recommended for retention of the accommodation at Delhi. 7. On 29.09.2015, the Ld. Estate Officer cancelled the Appellant"s allotment to the Quarter at Delhi Cantt. w.e.f. 21.07.2015. Thereafter, vide judgement dated 20.10.2015, the Ld. Estate Officer declared the Appellant as an unauthorized occupant of the said premises w.e.f. 21.07.2015, and accordingly directed him to vacate the same within 30 days of the receipt of the notice. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Appellant filed Appeal No. 136/2016 before the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The Ld. Judge dismissed the same vide order dated 21.02.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant filed W.P (C) No. 2560/2019 before the Ld. Single Judge seeking quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 21.02.2019, a direction to the Respondents to allow the Appellant to retain the same Quarter at Delhi Cantt, and resumption of duty in an office in Delhi Cantt. 9. Vide the impugned judgement dated 24.08.2022, the Ld. Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the Appellant failed to substantiate his claim and no mistake or illegality has been in existence in the order passed by the District Judge. The operative paragraphs of the impugned judgement are reproduced below: "16. This Court agrees with the learned District Judge that though the petitioner in his writ petition has pleaded that the said quarter was converted to 'General Pool A