PREM LATA DUBEY Vs. DELHI CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner one Smt. Prem Lata claiming the relief of release of family pension to her, and which pension was payable on account of late husband of the petitioner Sh. N.P. Dubey having worked with the respondent -Delhi Cantonment Board. On behalf of the petitioner, it is claimed that the entitlement to pension is not a bounty by the Government and it is a right in property which therefore cannot be withheld by the Government under any circumstances. This argument is raised because the petitioner, and prior thereto her husband, are illegally holding on to the accommodation given to Sh. N.P. Dubey during the period of N.P. Dubey's service with the employer -Delhi Cantonment Board. Of course, petitioner contends that the petitioner as also her late husband has rights to continue in the accommodation, however, this is disputed on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) IT is an admitted fact in the writ petition itself that proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, were initiated against Mr. N.P. Dubey and an order was passed by the Estate Officer. Sh. N.P. Dubey, however, appealed against the order of Estate Officer in the court of ADJ and which allowed the appeal by order dated 29.8.2005. A reference to the order of the ADJ shows that order of the Estate Officer was set aside only on technical grounds that impugned order of the Estate Officer was not a speaking order. The matter was therefore remanded back for passing of the speaking order.

(3.) I may also note that counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorakhpur University & Ors. Vs. Dr. Shitla Prasad Nagendra and Ors. : (2001) 6 SCC 591. Reliance is placed upon para 5 of the said judgment in which there are observations that even if there is illegal holding of government quarters after retirement, there is no ground to withhold terminal benefits. The facts of the present case show that petitioner, and prior thereto her husband, is stated to be in illegal occupation of the accommodation belonging to the respondent/employer/Delhi Cantonment Board. Petitioner of course, does claim that the petitioner is not in illegal occupation, however, it is a disputed question of fact which would have to be tried either in the proceedings under the Public Premises Act or before an appropriate civil court which would decide the aspect as to whether or not petitioner or her husband were/are in illegal occupation and the consequent charges for damages/illegal use and occupation are or are not payable by the petitioner or now from the estate of her late husband, Sh. N.P. Dubey. I have recently had an occasion to examine more or less similar issue in the case titled as Sudershan Bhagra Vs. Delhi Cantt. Board in W.P. (C) No. 6574/2008 decided on 20.3.2013. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are paras 2 to 5 and which read as under: -