Full Text
Date of Decision: 9th September, 2015.
V.K. KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bijender Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Satyakam, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Latika Chaudhary, Adv. for R-2 to 4.
JUDGMENT
1. The petition, i) impugns the order dated 18th June, 2009 of the Board of Governors of the respondent No.3 Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology (NSIT), Dwarka, New Delhi to charge the petitioner according to the NSIT House Allotment Rules, ii) seeks a direction to the respondents viz. Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD), NSIT and its President and Estate Manager to refund the amount of Rs.3,29,283/- deducted from the dues of the petitioner on account of market rent of the house, iii) seeks a direction for payment to petitioner of honorarium for discharge of duties and responsibilities of the post of Registrar, and iv) seeks a direction for fixing the responsibility of the officer who failed to act on the application dated 18th 2015:DHC:7491 July, 2008 of the petitioner.
2. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. The counsels have been heard.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that:
(i) He joined the respondent No.3 NSIT as a Visiting Associate in the School of Applied Sciences (Mathematics) on 19th August, 1999, initially on ad-hoc basis and was subsequently on 29th June, 2000 appointed to the post of Assistant Professor (Mathematics).
(ii) On 16th October, 2002 he was assigned the function of the duties of a Registrar.
(iii) On 16th October, 2002 he was also allocated accommodation, as per the Rules, within the NSIT Campus.
(iv) On 1st August, 2007 he was appointed to the post of Professorcum-Director at MERI College of Engineering and Technology, Bahadurgarh and the Board of Governors of the respondent No.3 NSIT granted on year long leave (Extraordinary Leave) without pay w.e.f. 1st August, 2007 to 31st July, 2008 to the petitioner to enable him to take up the said assignment.
(v) The petitioner on 26th May, 2008 applied to respondent No.3
NSIT seeking extension of his Extraordinary Leave for another one year from 1st August, 2008 to 31st July, 2009 and which was granted vide communication dated 18th June, 2008.
(vi) The petitioner during the first one year of his Extraordinary
Leave had been allowed to retain the house aforesaid allotted to him; the petitioner upon extension of his Extraordinary Leave for the period from 1st July, 2009, on 18th July, 2008 submitted an application to retain the house on the conditions as applicable to the previous year and further stated that he will pay all dues in respect of licence fee, electricity and water charges etc.
(vii) Neither any reply was received to the aforesaid application dated 18th July, 2008 nor was the petitioner called upon to vacate the house.
(viii) On 9th February, 2009 the petitioner was served with a consolidated bill for Rs.1,66,934/- on account of house rent for the period from 1st January, 2009 at the market rate of Rs.25,125.40 per month.
(ix) The petitioner represented to the Board of Governors of the respondent NO.3 NSIT thereagainst and which was vide impugned Resolution dated 18th June, 2009 decided to charge the petitioner for the period from 1st July, 2009 at the market rate only. The counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner on 30th June, 2009 surrendered the possession of the aforesaid house to the respondent No.3 NSIT and further informs that the petitioner has since joined the MERI College of Engineering and Technology, Bahadurgarh on a permanent post and has ceased to be an employee of respondent No.3 NSIT.
4. The counsel for the petitioner does not controvert that as per the House Allotment Rules of the respondent No.3 NSIT, the petitioner could retain the house during the Extraordinary Leave, maximum for a period of one year only and retention if permitted beyond the said one year for a further period of maximum one year is to be on payment of market rent. His contention however is that since the petitioner vide his letter dated 18th July, 2008 supra had represented / sought permission for being allowed to retain the house for another one year on the “conditions as applicable presently” and which means without payment of market rent and further since no response was given thereto, the petitioner has been caught unaware with the claim for market rent. It is further contended that had the respondent No.3 NSIT raise the bills for market rent month by month, immediately after the period of one year of Extraordinary Leave had expired, the petitioner would have been cautioned that he would be charged market rent and would have surrendered the house earlier.
5. The counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 NSIT states that the representation of the petitioner for being allowed to retain the house for another one year without payment of market rent could have been considered only by the Board of Governors of the respondent No.3 NSIT and who vide the impugned Resolution dated 18th June, 2009 have resolved that the petitioner cannot be so permitted. She further contends that the petitioner at the time of availing of the Extraordinary Leave had filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit in which he had stated that he will abide by the House Allotment Rules of the respondent No.3 NSIT.
6. The relevant Rule of the respondent No.3 NSIT in this regard is as under:-