UNION OF INDIA Vs. D N SAROJADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the order in O.A.No.279/2012 dated 6.2.2013 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has directed the respondent to continue in the present premises till an alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place is made available to her.

(2.) The respondent was employed at Airport Station, Yelahanka as Steno-I and was provided with an authorized Government accommodation within the station premises. On being promoted as Personal Secretary, she was transferred to the Station Headquartes Training Command, Indian Airforce Unit at Hebbal, Bangalore. She joined duty at the new work place on 1.3.2011.

(3.) As per the prevailing policy, the defence civilian employees have to vacate their quarters on posting to another station. The respondent through her letter dated 23.3.2011 requested the petitioners to permit her to retain the quarters for two months i.e. from 28.2.2011 to 27.5.2011. She undertook to vacate the quarters on 28.5.2011. Considering her request and undertaking, petitioner No.4 granted her permission to retain the quarters till 27.5.2011. On 16.5.2011, the respondent once again submitted a representation seeking permission to retain the quarters till she gets an accommodation at the new work place quoting medical reasons of her son. Petitioner No.4 through a letter dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure A5 ) informed the respondent that occupancy of service accommodation beyond two months of posting is not authorized due to policy constraints. It was further informed that she has been declared as an unauthorised occupant and action will be initiated against her for recovery of damages at the market rate and eviction as per the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Public Premises Act ), besides disciplinary action is being initiated against her. Instead of vacating the quarters, the respondent went on writing letters seeking extension of time to vacate the quarters quoting one reason or the other. Finally, a notice was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises Act to the respondent on 31.10.2011 as per Annexure R8 . This was followed by an order at Annexure R9 dated 13.12.2011 under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act directing her to vacate the quarters within 30 days from the date of publication of the said order. The respondent filed O.A.No.279/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the notice at Annexure R8 wherein she was informed that action for her eviction will be initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises Act.