SURESH KUMAR Vs. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders of 12/4/2019 and 18/9/2019. In terms of the first order of 12/4/2019, the respondents have proceeded to cancel the allotment of the General Pool Residential Accommodation [GPRA] being occupied by the petitioner here. Consequential directions for his eviction were also framed. By the second order of 18/9/2019, the respondents have conveyed their decision to refuse the prayer for regularization as made by the petitioner here.

(2.) Undisputedly, the accommodation in question forms part of premises falling in the GPRA pool of the respondents. The petitioner was appointed as a Lifeguard with the Sports Authority of India [SAI] - respondent No.1 here. It is his case that pursuant to an application which was made by him, the Directorate of Estate by an order of 29/4/2015, allotted the premises in question. It is also borne out from the record that the deductions towards rent and other statutory dues payable in respect of the premises were initially deducted from the salary of the petitioner by the respondent No.1 and duly transmitted. However, and is apparent from the record, the deductions after a particular period of time could not be deposited by the SAI consequent to it being found that the original allotment as made was invalid. The respondents essentially take the position that employees of the SAI, which is an autonomous body, would not be eligible for allotment of premises forming part of the GPRA.

(3.) The notice which came to be issued and pursuant to which the proceedings impugned commenced proceeded on the premise that the petitioner has failed to make deposits of license fee on the online portal of the Department of Estates. It further records that the license fee has not been uploaded by the DDO on the website of the Directorate of Estates so as to establish the eligibility of the petitioner to be allotted the accommodation. Ultimately and pursuant to the notice which had been issued, the Estate Officer proceeded to pass the impugned order of 12/4/2019 noting that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant in the public premises.