WP(C) No.2334/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.2334/2010 % Date of Decision: 09.04.2010 Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi …. Petitioner Through Mr.Siddhartha, Advocate. Versus Sh.Kamal Kumar Ahuja …. Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner has impugned the order dated 23rd September, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.602 of 2009, titled as ‘Kamal Kumar Ahuja v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’, allowing the original application of the respondent and quashing the order of the petitioner withholding his gratuity amount though no amount was due from the respondent to the petitioner. WP(C) No.2334/2010 Page 2 of 4 This is not disputed that the respondent was not allotted Quarter No.17, DTC Colony, G.T.Karnal Road, New Delhi, which was allotted to his father. The father of the respondent had liability in respect of the said quarter which was not paid, and consequently, the proceedings were initiated against Sh.Bhagwan Das, the father of the respondent, which continued after his demise against his legal representatives including the respondent. This is not disputed by the petitioner that under the provision of Section 13(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, the liability for damages or costs of removal after the death of the person liable for the same is payable by his heirs or legal representatives, but such liability is limited to the extent of the assets of the deceased in the hands of legal representatives or heirs. The Tribunal has allowed the petition of the respondent and set aside the order of the petitioner withholding the gratuity of the respondent, as the respondent had contended that after the demise of his father, he had not inherited any assets against which any liability could be invoked by the petitioner against the respondent. The petitioner did not produce anything to rebut the plea of the respondent that he had not inherited any assets from his father after his demise. WP(C) No.2334/2010 Page 3 of 4 Since the plea of the respondent remains un-rebutted, the petitioner is not entitled to withhold the gratuity in any manner as has been held by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while allowing the application of the respondent quashed the order of the petitioner withholding the gratuity amount of the respondent but has also given liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against the respondent, if it is established by the petitioner that he had inherited any assets from his late father Sh.Bhagwan Das. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner bona fide believes that the respondent had inherited assets from his father. In view of the categorical assertion and plea of the respondent that he had not inherited any assets, merely on the basis of alleged bona fide belief of the petitioner and his official, the gratuity of the respondent could not be withhold only on the basis of such alleged bonafide belief. Such withholding of the gratuity of the respondent is contrary to Section 13 (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circumstances, has not been able to justify any ground on which the petitioner was entitled to withhold the gratuity of the respondent. WP(C) No.2334/2010 Page 4 of 4 In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal allowing the original application of the respondent and quashing the order of the petitioner withholding the gratuity of the respondent does not suffer from any such illegality or irregularity which shall require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is without any merit, and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. APRIL 09, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘VK’