BABLI Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitions Involving common questions of fact and law are disposed of by this common 4653/01 order .

(2.) It must be clarified at the very outset that claim to allotment of Govt. residential accomodation does not become condition of service unless the relevant service Rules provide so. No such rule was shown or pressed in service in the present case which provided for petitioners entitlement to residential accomodation. The expression "any other matter" occurring in Sub Clause V could not be also interpreted so liberally and loosely as to include any matter whatsoever whether or not, it was related to employees service condition. The words "any matter" would be read esjuda generis and in the context of provisions of Rule 3 (Q). Otherwise any contrary interpretation placed on it would lead to absurd results and would make Tribunal a forum for all matters including private matters of an employee. That. indeed cannot be the intent and purpose of this Rule which defines the service Matters for purposes of giving Jurisdiction to Tribunal. An employee's non charging of HRA would be inconsequential in this regard and would not. convert his -claim for residential accommodation to service condition. As regards pool Rules, they only regulate the allotment of Govt. accommodation and do not confer any right as such on an employee to claim it. All this notwithstanding, we find that Tribunal had held petitioners OAe not maintainable upon reliance on the Supreme Court Judgment in Rasila Ram case (supra) which laid down:-

(3.) we have gone through that Judgment which proceeds on the premise that once eviction action was initiated for h.is unauthorised occupation of premises under the relevant Act, Tribunal could not assume Jurisdiction in the matter by reference to Sec. 3(Q)(V) by treating it as any other matter". That conclusively settles the issue once for all and it need be hardly expressed that law laid-down by Supreme Court, was binding on all including Tribunal and therefore its impugned orders could not be faulted for that. This is so for the added reason that Eviction Act provided its . own safeguards and remedies and where an employee felt aggrieved of any orders passed under this Act, he was to seek appropriate remedy provided . there in instead of approaching the Tribunal with his grievance i.n this regard.