Full Text
Translation output
J
J
$-45 & 48.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3347/2017
DILIP KUMAR JHA Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.M. Dar, Advocate.
J
$-45 & 48.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 3347/2017
DILIP KUMAR JHA Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.M. Dar, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE NDMC Respondent
Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.
^W.P.(C) 3364/2017 RAJEEV Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.M. Dar, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.
^W.P.(C) 3364/2017 RAJEEV Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.M. Dar, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE NDMC Respondent
Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.
Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi & Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
19.04.2017 These two petitions have been preferred by the respective petitioners to assail the common order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, NewDelhi(theTribunal).
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed abatch ofOriginal
2017:DHC:8111-DB Applications since they all raised the same issue, and the facts were similar.
The petitioners are legal heirs of deceased employees of New Delhi
Municipal Council (NDMC). The petitioners are regular muster roll employees ofthe NDMC. They had been appointed in that capacity on the death oftheir respective serving parents on compassionate grounds.
The petitioners approachedthe Tribunalwith a view to seek directions for continuing their occupation ofthe quarters / accommodation allotted by theNDMC to their predecessors-in-interest onaccount oftheir being regular employees. Since the petitioners did not have any right to continue in occupation of their respective quarters/accommodation, proceedings were undertaken against the petitioners under the Prevention of Public
Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, and eviction orders were passed. Their statutory appeals preferred before theDistrict Judge were also dismissed.
The petitioners sought to make out a case of discrimination by pointing out two specific cases ofSmt. Angoori Devi and Smt. Sunita. The respondents explained the specific circumstances in those cases, and the circumstances in which the saidpersons were allowed to continue to occupy the NDMC quarters. Those circumstances have been taken note of in the impugned order.
There is no dispute that the petitioners have no vested right to continue to occupy the quarters ofthe NDMC. Itcannot be said that there is any discrimination practiced by the respondents by permitting the aforesaid two persons —
Angoori Devi and Smt. Sunita, to continue to occupy the
NDMC quarters/ accommodation, since their peculiar circumstances have been explained and they fall ina distinct class.
J
-J r In any event, asrightly held by theTribunal, no claim can bebased on negative equality. Thus, even ifthe said persons - Angoori Devi and Smt. Sunita were not entitled to continue to occupy the NDMC accommodation, and they have been permitted to do so, that would not vest any right in the petitioners to seek the same relief.
There is nomerit inthese petitions. They are, accordingly, dismissed.
VIPIN SmGHl, J deepIa sharma, j APRIL 19, 2017
B.S. Rohella
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
19.04.2017 These two petitions have been preferred by the respective petitioners to assail the common order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, NewDelhi(theTribunal).
By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed abatch ofOriginal
2017:DHC:8111-DB Applications since they all raised the same issue, and the facts were similar.
The petitioners are legal heirs of deceased employees of New Delhi
Municipal Council (NDMC). The petitioners are regular muster roll employees ofthe NDMC. They had been appointed in that capacity on the death oftheir respective serving parents on compassionate grounds.
The petitioners approachedthe Tribunalwith a view to seek directions for continuing their occupation ofthe quarters / accommodation allotted by theNDMC to their predecessors-in-interest onaccount oftheir being regular employees. Since the petitioners did not have any right to continue in occupation of their respective quarters/accommodation, proceedings were undertaken against the petitioners under the Prevention of Public
Premises(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, and eviction orders were passed. Their statutory appeals preferred before theDistrict Judge were also dismissed.
The petitioners sought to make out a case of discrimination by pointing out two specific cases ofSmt. Angoori Devi and Smt. Sunita. The respondents explained the specific circumstances in those cases, and the circumstances in which the saidpersons were allowed to continue to occupy the NDMC quarters. Those circumstances have been taken note of in the impugned order.
There is no dispute that the petitioners have no vested right to continue to occupy the quarters ofthe NDMC. Itcannot be said that there is any discrimination practiced by the respondents by permitting the aforesaid two persons —
Angoori Devi and Smt. Sunita, to continue to occupy the
NDMC quarters/ accommodation, since their peculiar circumstances have been explained and they fall ina distinct class.
J
-J r In any event, asrightly held by theTribunal, no claim can bebased on negative equality. Thus, even ifthe said persons - Angoori Devi and Smt. Sunita were not entitled to continue to occupy the NDMC accommodation, and they have been permitted to do so, that would not vest any right in the petitioners to seek the same relief.
There is nomerit inthese petitions. They are, accordingly, dismissed.
VIPIN SmGHl, J deepIa sharma, j APRIL 19, 2017
B.S. Rohella
JUDGMENT