W.P.(C)/3343/2018 of MRS. MAJEET KAUR Vs ESTATE OFFICER AND ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIDate ofPronouncement:06.04.2018Date ofPronouncement:06.04.2018

+W.P.(C) 3343/2018 & CM Nos. 13158-160/2018

MRS. MAJEET KAURThrough :

Petitioner

Ms. Moneesh K. Verma andMr. Rajneesh Jha, Advs.

versus

ESTATEOFFICERANDORS

ORS.....RespondentsThrough :Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC withMs. L. Gangmei, Adv.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHERRAJIV SHAKDHER.J (ORAL)

CM Nos.13159-60/2018

1.Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 3343/2018& CM No.13158/2018

2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand of damages andmarket rent made by the respondents.

2.1To be noted, the demand raised is for sum of Rs.13,35,616/-.3.The petitioner, it appears, was otherwise entitled to Type-Iquarter. The petitioner, however, continued with her family after thedeath of her husband, who was employed with respondent no.2/SafdarjungHospitalas Lab Technician,in Type-II quarter,locatedatLaxmi Bai Nagar, New Delhi.

4.The petitioner,it appears,was given appointmentby respondentno.2/Safdarjung Hospital on compassionate grounds as her husband haddied. Though the petitionerhas vacatedthe quarter which was allottedto her husband while he was in service, damages are claimed for theperiod she was in occupationalong with her family while litigationwaspendingwith regard to regularisationof allotmentfor Type-I quarter in

her favour.

5.The record shows that via impugned letter dated 31.1.2018,respondent no.2 has put the petitioner to notice that in case thequantified damages are not paid as demanded, her salary would bestopped with effect from March 2018.

6.Issuenoticeto the respondents. Mr. RajeshGognaacceptsnoticeon behalfofrespondentno.1to 3. Learnedcounselsaysthatno counteraffidavitis required to be filed in the present matter and that he willadvance arguments based on the record, presently,availablewith thecourt.

6.1Mr. Gogna, though, fairly says that the recovery of damagescould only have been carriedout by taking recourseto the mechanismprovided under the Public Premises (Eviction of UnauthorizedOccupants),Act 1971 (in short'1971 Act')

7.For this attentionhas been drawnto Section7 ofthe purpose,my1971 Act. It is not disputedthat showcausenoticewas not issuedtothepetitioner.

8.In these circumstances,the writ petition is disposed of with adirectionto the respondentsto take recourseto the relevantprovisionsofthe 1971 Actto recoverthe claimeddamages.

9.Pendingstepsbeingtakenin that behal:!^no coercivemeasuresby ofeitherofoforofdueswaystoppagesalary adjustment againstsalarywill be takenby therespondents.10.Accordingly,pendingapplicationsshallstandclosed. No costs.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

APRIL 06, 2018mk