PREM SINGH RAWAT Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners are employees of Board Security Force (BSF). In the year 1992 all of them were posted on deputation to Special Protection Group (SPG) at Delhi. They were allotted dwelling units at Delhi. On 30th April, 2000 they were repatriated back from SPG to BSF with posting in Jammu & Kashmir / North-East. However, in January/February, 2001 itself they were reposted at BSF Headquarters, New Delhi. They applied for regularization of the accommodation already allotted to them during their stint with SPG, during their posting at New Delhi in BSF Headquarter in January/February, 2001 or for alternate accommodation to be allotted to them and for restraining the respondent/ Union of India from levying any penal license fee on the petitioners for retaining possession of the accommodation aforesaid allotted to them during their stint with SPG. Soon after issuance of notice of this petition, the SPG vide letter dated 25th August, 2004 to BSF sought vacation of the accommodation in occupation of the petitioners and for recovery of damages/charges for unauthorized retention of the SPG accommodation. This Court vide order dated 8 th September, 2004 directed that the petitioners be not dispossessed and no coercive steps be taken against them for vacation of the premises. The said order continues to be in force. It is however informed that in or about the year 2005, the petitioners were allotted alternative accommodation, one category below their entitlement by the BSF. The petitioners thus on 25th October, 2005 made a statement before this Court that since they had vacated the accommodation, nothing further survived in this petition. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as infructuous. However, subsequently, the petitioners applied for recall of the order of dismissal of writ petition as infructuous, on the ground that the petitioners had also claimed the relief of restraining the respondents from recovering any penal license fee from the petitioners and the respondents notwithstanding the petitioners having vacated the accommodation aforesaid were threatening to recover the penal license fee and which question was required to be adjudicated in the petition. This application of the petitioners for recall of the order of dismissal of the petition was allowed with the consent of the respondent on 20 th August, 2007 and the writ petition restored to its original number. The only controversy which thus survives in the present petition is as to the entitlement of the respondents to recover penal license fee from the petitioners for unauthorized retention of the SPG accommodation from 2001 till 2005 as aforesaid. Sums varying from Rs.1,53,000/- to Rs.1,96,000/- are sought to be recovered from each of the petitioners in terms of the communication dated 17 th October, 2008 of SPG.

(2.) The crux of the case of the respondents is that the accommodation aforesaid was placed at the disposal of SPG for use by officials of SPG, to provide them a tension free work environment and to ensure non- contamination of its members and to achieve their optimum operational efficiency and it was deemed desirable that the members of SPG are located at one or two places preferably near the work place. Immediate allotment of government accommodation was also deemed as an incentive to attract the best talent to SPG. It is thus the case of the respondent that even though the petitioners continued to remain employed with BSF and were eligible for allotment of government accommodation, but were so eligible from the pool of government accommodation of BSF or from general pool only and could not retain the accommodation of SPG and having unauthorizedly retained the same are liable to pay penal license fee therefor.

(3.) Per contra, the petitioners plead that the dwelling units of SPG were at the time of their deputation to SPG in 1992, still under construction; that 775 dwelling units of the general pool were placed at the disposal of SPG as a special measure; that as per the office memorandum dated 31st July, 2000 of the Directorate of Estates of the Government of India, where an officer is reposted to Delhi within a period of four months beyond the permissible period of eight months (for which the officer is entitled to retain the accommodation) the allotment may be regularized on payment of double the nominal license fee for the intervening period. It is their case that they having been reposted to Delhi within the said total period of 12 months and under the office memorandum aforesaid became entitled to regularization of the allotment earlier made to them. The petitioners also rely on minutes of the meeting held in the Ministry of Works and Housing on 4 th February, 1985 in this regard. It was agreed therein that officers who are occupying accommodation in other pools, on their transfer to offices eligible for general pool accommodation will be considered for allotment in the next below type in the general pool unless they are eligible for their entitled category by seniority. The counsel for the respondents contends that the aforesaid rule would not be applicable since the accommodation that the petitioners were occupying was not of the general pool but was of the departmental (SPG) pool.