Sh. Amit Sachdeva Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Sh. Amit Sachdeva vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 10, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/692326

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/692326
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Vijender Jain, J.
Decided On: Apr 10, 2002
Case Number: C.W. No. 7509/2000 and CM. 11577/2000
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226--Writ--Recovery the house rent allowance--When the petitioner entitled for house rent allowance under the terms of appointment, and on some complaint to recover HRA, as no show cause notice or any hearing was given to the petitioner, thereforee, the impugned order for recove...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sh. Amit Sachdeva

Advocate Indu Malhotra, Adv

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate Malvika Trivedi and ; S.K. Luthra, Advs.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002VAD(Delhi)955; 97(2002)DLT967; 2002(62)DRJ809

Excerpt

constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--writ--recovery the house rent allowance--when the petitioner entitled for house rent allowance under the terms of appointment, and on some complaint to recover hra, as no show cause notice or any hearing was given to the petitioner, thereforee, the impugned order for recovering hra is set aside--petition disposed of. - vijender jain, j.1. rule.2. this writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.3. the petitioner was appointed as lecturer in shri ram college of commerce university of delhi. under the terms of appointment the petitioner was entitled for house rent allowance. the petitioner's father was employed with tuberculosis associations of india. it seems that there is some disputes inter se with tuberculosis associations of india and father of the petitioner. on some complaint received from tai, respondent no. 3/university grants commission directed respondent no. 4, to recover the house rent allowance which was given to the petitioner.4. counsel for respondent no. 3 as a matter of fact has admitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. counsel for respondent no. 3 contended that they had requested to respondent no. 4 to conduct enquiry.5. house rent allowance which was given to the petitioner was pursuant to the service condition of the respondent. it seems that stand of respondent no. 5 was also that the house rent allowance given to the petitioner was in order. it was expected from respondent no. 3 before passing an adverse order against the petitioner to have heard the petitioner after giving him a show cause notice. respondent no. 3 has violated the principle of natural justice.6. as no show cause notice or any hearing was given to the petitioner the impugned order dated 6.9.99 of respondent no. 3 which is at page 63 of the paper book for recovering house rent allowance is set aside.7. however, respondent no. 3 will be at liberty to give fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, if they so desire.8. rule is made absolute.9. writ petition stands disposed of.10. application also stands disposed of.

Full Judgment

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage itself.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Shri Ram College of Commerce University of Delhi. Under the terms of appointment the petitioner was entitled for house rent allowance. The petitioner's father was employed with Tuberculosis Associations of India. It seems that there is some disputes inter se with Tuberculosis Associations of India and father of the petitioner. On some complaint received from TAI, respondent No. 3/University Grants Commission directed respondent No. 4, to recover the house rent allowance which was given to the petitioner.

4. Counsel for respondent No. 3 as a matter of fact has admitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that they had requested to respondent No. 4 to conduct enquiry.

5. House rent allowance which was given to the petitioner was pursuant to the service condition of the respondent. It seems that stand of respondent No. 5 was also that the house rent allowance given to the petitioner was in order. It was expected from respondent No. 3 before passing an adverse order against the petitioner to have heard the petitioner after giving him a show cause notice. Respondent No. 3 has violated the principle of natural justice.

6. As no show cause notice or any hearing was given to the petitioner the impugned order dated 6.9.99 of respondent No. 3 which is at page 63 of the paper book for recovering house rent allowance is set aside.

7. However, respondent No. 3 will be at liberty to give fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, if they so desire.

8. Rule is made absolute.

9. Writ petition stands disposed of.

10. Application also stands disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2002 Same Parties Sh. Amit Sachdeva vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Service Same Judge Vijender Jain, J.

Service