ition Civil No 1055 and 1088 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  RP Kapur for the petitioners
VC Mahajan Mrs Kitty K Manglam and Ms A Subha shini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OZA J
After hearing the learned counsel for parties it clearly emerges that the two petitioners and one Smt
Rekha Mehta who had filed a petition earlier were all the employ ees of one institution known as Nari Kiketan
This institu tion was fully funded by Delhi Administration and was con trolled by Board managing the affairs
It is also not in dispute that all the three persons mentioned above the two petitioners and Smt
Rekha Mehta are identically situated in respect of their conditions of service
On 11279 the Board was superseded and the institution was taken over by the Delhi Administration and the staff of this institution Nari Niketan was absorbed in the Delhi Administration vide Order No 4 23 79 DSW ESTT dated 27280
By this order about 20 officials were absorbed in time scale and pay as were being drawn by them prior to 11279
These facts are not disputed
It is also not in dispute that Smt
Rekha Mehta when after retirement was not given pensionary benefits she filed a petition in this Court No C 539 of 1987
This Court passed the order in the case of Smt
Rekha Mehta as Rule issued and made absolute
Arguments heard
The respondents arc directed to calcu late the pension and other retiral benefits of the petitioner taking into account her an tecedent of service before absorption and pay the same as early as possible and in any event not later than three months from today
The respondent will pay costs quantified at Rs 2000 to the petitioner
 Thereafter these two petitioners have again filed writ petitions alleging that they have retired and therefore they are entitled to the same pensionary benefits which were given to Smt
Rekha Mehta as they belong to the services of Nan Niketan institution subsequently 602 absorbed in the services of Delhi Administration
It is also not in dispute that these petitioners repeatedly approached the respondent Delhi Administration and made representations for getting the pensionary benefits as were granted to Smt
Rekha Mehta after the orders were passed by this Hon ble Court
Unfortunately in spite of all this nothing was done consequently these two writ petitions were filed before this Court
Learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Administra tion attempted to contend that the decision in the case of Smt
Rekha Mehta will not be applicable but realising the difficulty he only read through the affidavit filed in return wherein a long story as to how the papers tossed from department to department and ultimately no decision was taken
There is also reference to the Govt
of India Minis try of Personnel  Training Public Grievances  Pensions and it is stated that in the opinion of these departments the judgment of this Court in Smt
Rekha Mehta was a judg ment in the particular case only and these petitioners are not entitled to pensionary benefits
It is unfortunate that such a simple affair where the services in an institution under the control of the Delhi Administration and fully funded by the Delhi Administration when taken over and the staff absorbed in the Delhi Administration it could be said that they will not be entitled to ordinary facilities like the pensionary benefits when available to other staff of the Delhi Administration and apart from it when in one case of an employee of the institution whose services were absorbed in the Delhi Administration has been decided by this Court still the counter affidavit indicates the working of the departmental officials who chose to opine that it is not binding on the Go vt
That was a case only of a particular employee in spite of the fact that Union of India is alleged as a party
It has chosen not to keep a counsel present at the time of hearing of these petitions
All these circum stances go to indicate as to how the matters are handled by our Administration resulting in unnecessary litigation and heavy expenditure on the public exchequer
Apart from the expenditure of litigation the costs that have to be paid in such litigation
The facts as are not in dispute the case of one of the employees having been decided by this Court it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed would have been given the same benefit which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also of the waste of time and the movement of files and papers which only waste public time
Learned counsel only read out the counter and stated that it was thought that the case of Smt
Rekha Mehta will not be ap plicable to the case of the present petitioners although learned counsel had no argument in law to sup 603 port such a contention
The petitions are therefore allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be paid their pensionary benefits within 3 months from today
It is fur ther directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to costs of Rs2500 in each case
It is also directed that the matter will be considered at the appropriate level to see that such things do not happen in future so that unnecessary litigation is avoided and costs to the public exchequer is saved
PSS Petitions allowed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 who claimed to be the owner of the evacuee property in dispute sold it to respondents 2 and 3 in 1970
In 1973 the Custodian Evacuee Property held that the sale was invalid since the property belonged to one Shah Mahmood and after Shah Mahmood s migration to Pakistan during 1947 became evacuee property under the Evacuee Administration of Property Act 2006 of J  K State
The Custodian General while dismissing the respondents  appeal against the Custodian s order observed inter alia that if any application had been made by the first respondent under section 8 of the Act regarding the house the Custodian may dispose of the same in accordance with law
Thereafter the respondents made an application under section 8 of the Act and the same was rejected by the Custodian
The appeal against rejection was dismissed by the Custodian General
The respondents filed second appeal before the High Court
While declining to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Custodian and the Custodian General the High Court expressed concern over the abuse of section 8
The High Court observed that sections 8 and 14 of the Act had outlived their utility and directed that the authorities should not in future entertain any application made under section 8
Allowing the appeal filed by the State on the question of continued utility of section 8 the Court HELD 1 There was no need or necessity for the High Court to have gone into the question whether section 8 had outlived its utility and whether it continued to have rele vance
474B 2 Section 8 is closely inter linked with section 6 of the Act which deals with the powers of a Custodian to notify a property as evacuee property under the Act and as long as section 6 has relevancy and operative force and in as much as notifications could still be made under 471 that section in appropriate cases section 8 also will have to be retained and made use of by genuinely affected par ties
473G H 3 A portion of the State is still in the hands of an alien Government and hence the possibility of a property becoming an evacuee property even now is very much there
473H 474A