ORDER Civil Appeal No. 2476/2002)
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The appellant herein, while working as technical officer in the directorate of health and family planning services, Bangalore, was allotted government quarter bearing No. C-9, Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore. In the year 1984, the government decided to construct first floor on the building occupied by the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, from constructing first floor. The said suit was dismissed. Regular first appeal, filed by the appellant, was also dismissed by the High Court. The High Court while dismissing the RFA, passed the following order:
"I therefore direct the government to put up the first floor construction forthwith if it is not done already and recover the difference in cost thereof from the plaintiff from his salary or from any other money payable to him by the government and such deduction shall start as and from January 1999. It is significant to point out that nearly 14 years as on date, the plaintiff has successfully prevented the government from putting up the construction by abuse of process of court. It is open to the government to calculate the approximate cost and approximate loss or the difference in cost of construction and recover the same in instalments from the plaintiff taking into consideration the total number of years of service with the government."
4. In addition to that, the appellant was directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/-. Aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us by way of special leave petitions.
5. Mr. Rama Jois, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that the appellant could not have been placed at a worse position than when he was before the trial court and, therefore, the order of the High Court, to the extent it directed the recovery of compensation from his salary, be set aside. Mr. N. Ganpathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the said legal propositions.
We, therefore, set aside the direction issued by the High Court by order dated 4th December, 1998 that the approximate loss or the difference in cost of construction shall be recovered from the salary of the appellant herein. Rest of the decree as affirmed by the High Court is upheld.
6. We are informed at the bar that the appellant has since retired. In that view of the matter, the appellant shall vacate the premises by 31st May, 2002 provided he files a usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. In case the undertaking is not filed, this part of the order shall stand vacated and it will be open to the government to evict the appellant from the premises in dispute.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 2475/2002
8. Leave granted.
9. In view of the fact that appellant has deposited the cost, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.