K K KAUSHIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the order dated 22. 1. 2008 of Central administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2499/2006, K. K. Kaushik vs. Union of India and ors. , declining to set aside the orders dated 13. 7. 2006 and 17. 11. 2006 passed by the respondents. By these orders the respondents rejected the representations made by the petitioner against his being declined HRA for the period he was allowed mutual exchange of government accommodation with his son in law pursuant, to his undertaking that he will not vacate before the expiry of two years. To comprehend the disputes some of the relevant facts are that the petitioner is an ACP-Special Cell. His son-in-law is also a police officer, however, junior in rank. The petitioner belongs to Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Island Police Service, whereas his son-in-law is in Delhi Police. The petitioner and his son-in-law both had residential accommodation and the petitioner applied for exchange of his residential accommodation with the residential accommodation of his son-in-law. The mutual exchange was permitted to the petitioner whereby his accommodation was given to his son-in-law and the accommodation of the petitioner's son-in-law was occupied by the petitioner on the condition that in case either of them will surrender their government accommodation within two years from the date of mutual exchange, they would be liable for the consequences as per (SO)No. 3/2006 and an undertaking to that effect was also executed by the petitioner along with his son-in-law.

(2.) THE respondents under the provisions of Delhi Police Act, 1978, had issued a standing order (SO) No. 3/2006. Under the terms and conditions which were agreed by the petitioner, one of the term was that in case of vacation of the exchanged residential accommodation by him prior to said period of two years, he will have to forego his HRA for the remaining period of two years and he would be debarred from allotment of another quarter.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner vacated his exchanged accommodation before the expiry of two years despite an undertaking given by him, as such his house rent allowance was withheld till 24. 2. 2008, as mutual exchange of government accommodation was permitted to the petitioner on 24. 2. 2006. By order dated 12. 6. 2006, the petitioner was further debarred for allotment of government quarter for that year and the government quarter vacated by him was allotted to HC Vinod Kumar. The petitioner made a representation against the order dated 12. 2. 2006 contending, inter alia, that his son had suffered losses in his business which compelled him to move with his son and consequently he had to vacate the government accommodation. In the circumstances, petitioner contended that the order withholding house rent allowance till 24. 2. 2008 be set aside. The petitioner contended that order of withholding of payment of HRA after vacation of government quarter is in contravention of financial rules which give him the Constitutional right to get the HRA and thus under the standing order issued by the respondents his constitutional right to get the HRA cannot be denied. It was asserted that the order of withholding the HRA has put him in financial hardship and no loss is caused to the respondents as the government quarter vacated by him prior to expiry of two years period was immediately allotted to another occupant from 12. 6. 2006. The representations of the petitioner were rejected and the order of withholding the HRA uptil 24. 2. 2008, till the expiry of two years period, was upheld by the respondents. Aggrieved by the orders of rejection of representations of the petitioner, he filed a petition being OA No. 2499/2006, K. K. Kaushik vs. Union of India and Ors before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 22. 1. 2008 which is impugned by the petitioner before this Court.