Kerala HC: Must Provide Detenue with Legible and Readable Copies  ||  Delhi HC: If Security Clearance Cancelled for National Security Court Can’t Second Guess it  ||  HP HC: Mere Use of Encroached Land Doesn’t Make a Person Necessary Party  ||  Bombay HC: Can’t Ask Husband to Pay Instalments for Under Construction Flat  ||  Delhi HC: State Delaying in Challenging Orders is a Setback to Victim’s Pursuit of Justice  ||  Patna HC Sets Aside Conviction of Juvenile-in-Conflict with Law  ||  Ker HC: Daughter of Hindu Who Dies after 20.12.2004 is entitled to Equal Share in Ancestral Property  ||  SC: Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Matters  ||  MP HC Sets Aside Order Recognising Saif Ali Khan & Family as Heirs of Nawab of Bhopal's Properties  ||  Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Petitions Challenging Bihar Electoral Roll Revision on July 10    

G.K. Nanda Vs. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (16 Oct 2017)

Retention of accommodation for 8/6 months is automatic without any request or production of certificate by the allottees

MANU/DE/3163/2017

Service

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with prayers that, present Court may kindly direct or issue a writ of appropriate nature, thereby quashing the Officer Order dated 07th July, 2017 passed by the Respondent and thereafter direct the Respondent to allow the Petitioner to retain the Office Accommodation for a period of 8 months as per prevailing Rules on 31st May, 2017, inclusive of the Rules forming part of Office Memorandum dated 31st July, 2013. Issue involved in present case is whether the Petitioner's case shall be regulated by OM dated July 31, 2013 or office order of June 30, 2017.

According to Para 2 of the OM dated July 31, 2013, the retention of accommodation for 8/6 months is automatic without any request or production of certificate by the allottees. The retention stands cancelled after allowing retention for that period simultaneously whereas the Office Order dated June 30, 2017 clearly stipulates that, the Office Order shall be enforceable with immediate effect after the approval of Competent Officers. In other words, the effect of the order would be, on June 30, 2017 or thereafter. The issuance of order dated June 30, 2017 may have annulled the effect of the OM dated July 31, 2013 but that would be only from June 30, 2017 and not before that. Admittedly, the Petitioner stood retired on May 31, 2017. His case of retention shall be governed by the OM dated July 31, 2013 of the Government of India as adopted by the Respondent No. 1. On that date, certain rights/privileges had accrued to the Petitioner with regard to the retention of the accommodation. The very fact that, the OM dated July 31, 2013 has been adopted by the Board of Directors of TCIL shows a conscious decision on the part of the Respondent No. 1 to make the applicable the OM in the same manner as it existed. The Respondent No. 1 could have framed its own Rules/instructions in that regard to suit its requirement.

In the case in hand, when the Office Order dated June 30, 2017 clearly stipulated that the effect of the same shall be with immediate effect after the approval of Competent Officers, surely, the same would suggest that, it will have a prospective effect. No doubt, the plea that, this Office Order seeks to remove the mischief of OM dated July 31, 2013 but that would not mean, under the garb of removing the mischief and invoking the principles of purposive interpretation, an existing right can be taken away for retention of the accommodation for eight months in terms of OM dated July 31, 2013. The OM dated July 07, 2017 is set aside. The Petitioner shall have the right to continue in the accommodation till January 31, 2018 and shall be liable to pay Licence Fee in accordance with the OM dated July 31, 2013.

Tags : ACCOMMODATION   RETENTION   RIGHT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved