Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Yashwant Sakharam Sarpe Vs. General Manager (Production), Haffkine Biopharaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
Received on : 22.01.2020
Registered on : 13.02.2020
Decided on : 20.02.2021
Duration : Y M D
01 00 29
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Misc. Appeal No.9 of 2020
(CNR No. MHCC01-000918-2020)
Shri Yashwant Sakharam Sarpe
Age 62 years, Occupation: Retired
Residing at Room No.302,
8 Cool Home Society, Vichumbe,
Devad, Near Green Valley,
New Panvel, Dist- Raigad, 410206 ..Appellant
(Org. Respondent)
Versus
1. General Manager (Production)
Haffkine Bio pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
Acharya Dhonde Marg, Parel,
Mumbai- 400 012. ..Respondent No.1
(Org. applicant)
2. Competent Authority
404, 4th floor,
Old Custom House, Fort,
Mumbai- 400 001 ..Respondent No.2
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
S.B.AGRAWAL(C.R.No.19)
Dated : 20th February, 2021
Appearance:
Page 1 of 5
20.2.2021
-- 1 of 5 --
Yashwant Sakharam Sarpe Vs. General Manager (Production), Haffkine Biopharaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
Adv. Ms. Harsha Pol i/b Adv. Mr. Shrijeet Gaikwad
for appellant.
Adv. Mr. M.B.Jadhav
for respondents.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
Order passed by the Competent Authority under The Bombay
Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 directing eviction of the
appellant from the Government premises namely D-44, Acharya Dhonde
Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 and recovery of penal rent Rs.5,51,850/-
is assailed in the present appeal.
2. It is not in dispute that the subject premises was allotted to the
appellant because the appellant was in service of respondent No.1. It is
also not in dispute that he retired from the service on 30.6.2018 and
had not vacated the subject premises.
3. It is submitted before me by Learned Counsel for both the sides
that the appellant has vacated the premises on 1.1.2020.
4. It is contended by Learned Counsel for the appellant that certain
retiral dues of the appellant have been withheld for the recovery of the
amount of penal rent and that appellant was Class-IV employee and it
would be financially taxing for him, if the said amount is recovered
from his retiral dues.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that the amount calculated is as per the Government Resolution and
that Respondents had no authority to reduce the said amount for any
Page 2 of 5
20.2.2021
-- 2 of 5 --
Yashwant Sakharam Sarpe Vs. General Manager (Production), Haffkine Biopharaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
reason whatsoever.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, following points arise for my
consideration and my findings thereon for the reasons thereof are as
under:
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the impugned order so far as it
relates to awarding penal rent, is just, proper
and legal?
..In the affirmative.
2. What Order ..As per final order
R E A S O N S
Point Nos.1 and 2:
7. As stated above, the appellant retired from the service on
30.6.2018 and had retained the official residence admeasuring 262.60
sq.ft. for a period of 18 months. If the calculation of the damages is
considered, the same has been computed at the rate of Rs.130/- per
month for initial 3 months and at the rate of Rs.390/- per month for the
next 3 months and it is thereafter that the actual penal rent at the rate
of Rs. 150/- per sq.ft. per month is awarded. As far as legality of the
said amount is concerned, since the same is as per the Government
Resolution, it cannot be faulted with.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant pressed for waiver of the said
amount or for reduction of the said amount on equity. However, this
Court would not have any power to waive or reduce the said amount.
Page 3 of 5
20.2.2021
-- 3 of 5 --
Yashwant Sakharam Sarpe Vs. General Manager (Production), Haffkine Biopharaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
Moreover, the provision of such hefty penal rent is made in city like
Mumbai with a view that outgoing Government Servants vacated the
premises without unnecessary delay, so that, the incumbent
Government servants do not require to face any difficulty for getting
accommodation. Considering aforesaid aspects, the impugned order
cannot be faulted with. However, it would be open for Respondent No.1
to consider reduction of the penalty if necessary by moving a proposal
to the Government on representation filed by the appellant in that
regard, and concerned Authority shall consider the same representation
on its own merit and with empathy. In such circumstances, I answer the
points accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
Misc.Appeal No.9 of 2020 is dismissed.
20.2.2021 (S.B.AGRAWAL)
Principal Judge,
City Civil Court,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 20.2.2021
Transcribed on : 20.2.2021
Signed by HHJ on : 20.2.2021
Page 4 of 5
20.2.2021
-- 4 of 5 --
Yashwant Sakharam Sarpe Vs. General Manager (Production), Haffkine Biopharaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographers: B.S.Parab
Upload date and time: 23.2.2021 (at 11.05 am)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri S.B.AGRAWAL(C.R.No.19)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
20.2.2021
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 20.2.2021
Judgment/Order uploaded on 23.2.2021
Page 5 of 5
20.2.2021
-- 5 of 5 --