Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 1182
High Court Of Delhi
VIMAL MARWAH - Appellant
Versus
D.D.A. - Respondent
W.P. 2794 of 1996
Decided On : 12/16/2004
ANUSUYA SALWAN, N.R.Sharma, R.K.SAINI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that subsequent remedies provided to the petitioner for initial grievances precluded the court from granting relief for past issues.
Headnote:
DDA - Self Financing Scheme - Vth SFS Scheme - 1982, 1991, 1993 - The court discussed the Vth Self Financing Scheme, the application process, and the allotment of flats under the scheme. The court highlighted the interpretation of the retirement order, the eligibility criteria, and the application process for flat allotment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a flat under the Vth Self Financing Scheme but faced issues with eligibility and allotment. The court found that the petitioner's grievances were remedied in subsequent application rounds and dismissed the petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's grievances were addressed in later application rounds, and no relief could be granted for the initial issues faced by the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's eligibility, allotment process, and the interpretation of the retirement order. The court also considered the petitioner's failure to inquire about previous applications and allotments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's initial grievances were remedied in subsequent application rounds, and no relief could be granted for the past issues. The court also emphasized the petitioner's failure to inquire about previous applications and allotments.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
( 1 ) DESIRE to have a self owned roof over her head led petitioner to get herself registered, on 26. 7. 1982, vide registration No. 1216, under the Vth Self Financing Scheme of the DDA in Category III. As per the scheme, as and when DDA decided to construct flats, registrants could apply for inclusion of their name in a draw and if successful were to be allotted a flat. On payment of the amount demanded, in instalments, possession of the flat was to be handed over by DDA.
( 2 ) TILL 1991, petitioner could not get a flat. What to dol Applications were one to many.
( 3 ) IN the year 1991, DDA decided to allot a few flats constructed in South delhi to retired and retiring public servants who had got themselves registered under the self financing scheme. Petitioner applied under said scheme called rps, 1991 by submitting an application on 9. 9. 1991.
( 4 ) PETITIONER was employed under the M. C. D. as a Principal. She had sought voluntary retirement in the year 1987. Her request was acceded to. On 29. 12. 1987, following order was issued :
"as per orders of Deputy Commissioner (Tax)dated22. 12. 1987,smt. Vimal marwah, Principal, Primary School Multani Dhanda, Gali No. 6 is granted voluntary retirement with effect 31. 12. 87 afternoon, so Smt. Vimal marwah be relieved from her duties from M. C. D. since 31. 12. 1987, and the Inspector School shall take over the charge from her before relieving her. Sd/- Head Clerk. "
( 5 ) ALONG with her application dated 9. 9. 1991, petitioner submitted copy of order dated 29. 12. 1987 as proof of her having retired.
( 6 ) LITTLE did the petitioner know that those she had taught did not learn their lesson well. They had learnt to read documents literally, pedantically and mechanically. Logic and reasoning had not dawned on them.
( 7 ) IT is to be noted that order dated 29. 12. 1987 granted voluntary retirement to the petitioner with effect from 31. 12. 987 -a date in the future.
( 8 ) OFFICER concerned in DDA read the order as futuristic in nature and not one evidencing proof of the petitioner having retired. A doubting mind should learn to clear the doubt. But DDA believes in living with doubts. Order dated 29. 12. 1987 was submitted on 9. 9. 1991. If one had a doubt as to what happened on 31. 12. 1987, surely, in September, 1991 one could have got the matter clarified. But why should the officer do that. On petitioner s application he wrote not Eligible .
( 9 ) ON 17. 7. 1992, DDA published a list of eligible applicants of retired and retiring public servants. Objections were invited by21. 71992. Draw oflots was to be held on 24. 7. 19. 92.
( 10 ) PETITIONER checked the list of eligible applicants. Her name was missing. Petitioner claims that she contacted the concerned officer who informed her that she was held ineligible as she had not filled up Col. No. 12 of the form. Said column required the applicant to state :
"12. Have you applied in response to scheme for priority allotment for rps earlier, if so, give application No. and date. "
( 11 ) PETITIONER had left the column blank. She claims to have informed dda vide letter dated 20. 7. 1992 as under :
( 12 ) NAME of the petitioner was not entered in the draw of lots. It is stated in the petition (para 8) that she made representations on 29. 7. 1992, 28. 9. 1992, 22. 2. 1993, 29. 3. 1993 and 12. 5. 1993, requesting that a flat be allotted to her in south Delhi. In para 9 of the petition, it is stated that on 18. 3. 1993, petitioner met the Director (Housing), SFS-I and submitted the relieving letter dated 1. 1. 1988, under which she was relieved from service consequent to her being voluntarily retired.
( 13 ) IN para 21 of the petition, it is stated that in December, 1993, DDA floated another scheme known as SFS Vth Scheme. (I may note that DDA had in fact required registrants of Vth SFS Scheme to apply for inclusion of their name at a draw to be held.) Petitioner applied for allotment in Sukhdev Vihar, sarita Vihar or East
