The judgment emphasized the principle that the challenge to the vires of rules would be mere academic if the issue had been settled by previous court decisions, and highlighted the importance of finality in legal matters.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM No.36571/2017 (direction)

This is an application filed by the petitioner for filing lengthy list of dates. The application is allowed and disposed of. The list of dates as filed is taken on record.

W.P.(C) 8942/2017

1. The present has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “In view of the above facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

(i) Strike down/quash, Rule/Instruction 7 (C), 14 E) and 14 F) of the Allotment of Resident-Instructions dated 5.12.2011 of the Respondent ONGC;

(ii) Direct the Respondent no.2 to provide, all the recoveries (with interest) wrongfully made by the Respondent, from the salary of the Petitioner and;

(iii) Direct the Respondent ONGC to provide to the Petitioner, HRA from the time of transfer of the Petitioner to Uran, Mumbai till today and thereafter.

(iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.”

2. The petitioner is an employee of an Oil Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). He was allotted a Flat No.B-26 7th Floor, ONGC Housing Complex Sector-39, Noida. The petitioner’s license with respect to the said flat was cancelled on account of the petitioner being transferred by the employer to Navi Mumbai. Petitioner submitted the surrender letter of the licensed premises to the employer on May 29, 2015 without actually handing over the possession because as per the case of the petitioner his estranged wife was refusing to hand over the possession of the premises to him or to the employer directly. The employer was deducting the license fee from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said action of the ONGC in a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) 6357/2016. The same was decided on February 02, 2017 on the following terms:

“6. In view of the above, this writ petition is based on no legal cause of action inasmuch as there is no law or rule of the employer/organization by which the licence or charges for use and occupation fee cease to be paid merely on handing over of nominal possession without handing over actual vacant physical possession. Petitioner will be liable therefore to pay licence fee or any other charges payable to the employer as per its rules to the respondent No.2 till actual physical possession of the licenced premises is received back by the employer/respondent No.2. In view of the facts of the present case I further direct that wife of petitioner Ms. Sakshi will be given a notice of one month from today to vacate the licenced premises inasmuch as Ms. Sakshi has already had more than around one and half years time to vacate the premises which has not been vacated, and after expiry of one month from today, the respondents along with petitioner can approach the concerned police authorities who will provide police assistance, and the respondents will not use more than reasonable force than which is necessary so that the licenced premises being Flat No.B-26, 7th Floor, ONGC Housing Complex, Sector-39, Noida-201301 are got vacated by the respondent No.2 and actual physical vacant possession thereof is received by respondent No.2 from whoever is in possession of the aforesaid licenced premises.”

3. The above said order was taken in appeal by the estranged wife of the petitioner as well as by the petitioner himself. In so far as the appeal being LPA 147/2017 of the estranged wife was concerned, the impugned order was not interfered by the Appellate Court except the time for vacating the flat was extended by a period of 15 days. The Division Bench also observed that the ONGC will be entitled to charge rental for the period of 15 days in accordance with law from the original licensee.

4. Insofar as the appeal being 160/2017 filed by the petitioner herein, was concerned the same was withdrawn by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner stating that he would like to challenge the rule relating to the penal rent and rate of penal ren