YUGAL KISHORE Vs. DELHI JAL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to refund an amount of Rs.20,237.70/- , alleged to have been illegally recovered from the petitioner along with an interest @18% p.a., from his retiral benefits on account of damages assessed towards use and occupation of government accommodation.

(2.) Facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows. The petitioner joined the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking, predecessor in interest of the respondent Delhi Jal Board, in the year 1956. The petitioner was allotted Quarter NO. 111, Water Works No.2, Chandrawal, Delhi for residence. The petitioner was due to retire on 30.4.1997, however, having failed to make any alternate arrangement, he made a representation to the respondent to permit him to stay in the aforesaid quarter after his retirement. The respondent, vide Office Order No. 84 dated 12.05.1997, informed the petitioner that the Competent Authority had approved his request and allowed him to stay in the said premises till 31.08.1997, on payment of normal license fee. Thereafter vide letter dated 28.08.1997, the petitioner again requested the respondent to further extend the time to vacate the quarter till 31.12.1997, but the said request was declined by the respondent, not being permissible under the Rules. The petitioner vacated the said premises on 28.02.1998 and handed over the possession to the respondent. Meanwhile, the respondent vide letter dated 19.08.1998, intimated the petitioner that a sum of Rs.20,237.70/- had been deducted from his retiral benefits, which action of the respondent, the petitioner seeks to assail by way of the present petition.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that since negotiations for the marriage of the petitioner"s daughter was at an advance stage, therefore, he requested the respondent to extend the time to vacate the said premises till 31.12.1997, and having received no reply to the same, he deemed his request to have been allowed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondent in deducting the said amount as damages from the retiral dues of the petitioner, is absolutely arbitrary and unlawful in view of the fact that neither any notice of the alleged damaged was served upon the petitioner, nor any proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises Act (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act").