GULSHAN RAI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were employees of the Supreme Court of India were sent on deputation on 31.08.1990 to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) [hereinafter referred to as the "said Tribunal"]. The said Tribunal has its office at Janpath, New Delhi. The petitioners as a part of their employment with the Supreme Court of India were in occupation of Government accommodation from the general pool. The question that arises in the present petition is with regard to their right to retain the same during the period of their deputation with the said Tribunal as also the question of their liability to pay licence fee therefor. It is to be noted that these four petitioners ultimately returned to the Supreme Court by the end of 1994.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 submits that, as per the policy, the petitioners were liable to pay licence fee at the market rate beyond the two year period which was a relaxation which had been granted to the petitioners by the office memorandum dated 03.12.1990. Learned counsel for the said respondents also referred to the parent guidelines which were formulated by the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation (CCA) in its meeting held on 12.09.1985. These guidelines are to be found in the office memorandum dated 24.10.1985 which has been handed over by the learned counsel for the said respondents and which is taken on record.

(3.) Before I examine the policy as contained in the office memorandum of 24.10.1985 and the subsequent office memorandum of 03.12.1990, it would be pertinent to note the circumstances under which the petitioners were on deputation with the said Tribunal. On 23.07.1990, the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India addressed a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India on the subject of filling up of posts for the said Tribunal. In that letter, it was indicated that five (5) posts were necessary and they were required to be filled up on deputation basis immediately. Insofar as the post of Registrar of the Tribunal was concerned, it was clearly indicated in the letter that the Chairman of the said Tribunal had approved the name of Shri Gulshan Rai Sharma, who was at that time working as Assistant Registrar in the Supreme Court of India. Insofar as the other posts were concerned, by the said letter, the Ministry requested the Supreme Court to suggest suitable names from amongst its employees. It was indicated that initially the period of deputation would be for one year which would be extended from time to time as required. This was followed by another letter dated 03.08.1990 from the said Ministry to the Supreme Court reiterating its earlier request for immediately deputing officers for filling up the posts indicated therein and to direct them to report to the Ministry latest by 16.08.1990. Thereafter, by a letter dated 31.08.1990, an Office Order No.217/190 was issued by the Supreme Court under the signature of the Registrar (Admn. J) to the effect that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India had placed the services of the officers mentioned therein, who were members of the staff of the Supreme Court Registry, at the disposal of the said Tribunal on usual terms and conditions of deputation w.e.f. the afternoon of 31.08.1990. Six names were mentioned in that letter which included the four petitioners herein. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners were placed at the disposal (on deputation) of the said Tribunal. It is clear from these documents that the petitioners had, in fact, been selected and sent to the said Tribunal by the Supreme Court. At the point at which they were so sent on deputation, they already occupied accommodation under the general pool.