UNION OF INDIA Vs. HIMMAT SINGH CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has come to be preferred by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, in short, 'CAT', whereby, the OA No.3140/2016 filed by the respondent for quashing the communication/order dated 12.05.2016, whereby, the allotment of Govt. accommodation of the respondent was cancelled and the consequential orders that came to be passed by the petitioners, was allowed.

(2.) Concisely, the relevant facts are that the respondent, during the course of his employment with the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change as Steno Gr.-D, was allotted Qtr. No. 101, Block-L, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi in short, 'the subject quarter', w.e.f. 30.09.1991. He joined Airport Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) on deputation w.e.f. 14.02.2014. Vide the impugned communication dated 12.05.2016, the petitioners cancelled the allotment of the subject quarter in favour of the respondent w.e.f. 12.05.2014 and claimed damages @ Rs. 14,800.00 p.m., followed with the demand of damages of Rs. 3,48,994.00 vide communication dated 20.05.2016. On this, the respondent made a representation dated 02.06.2016 seeking regularisation of the allotment of the subject quarter till the time of his deputation with AERA, which was to end on 13.02.2017. Having made such representation, the respondent on his own request, got repatriated vide office order dated 21.06.2016 issued by AERA and so joined his parent department. The representation made by the respondent against cancellation of the allotment of the subject quarter however came to be rejected and communicated vide letter dated 05.07.2016 of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent approached CAT by way of OA No.3140/2016, in which, the impugned order has come to be passed.

(3.) Pertinently, the petitioners assail the impugned order on two counts. Firstly, CAT had no jurisdiction to entertain the subject OA inasmuch as according to the petitioners, the subject dispute fell within the realm of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, in short 'the PP Act'. Secondly, AERA was established on 12.05.2009 and as per OM No.12035/14/92/Pol II dated 12.10.2000, the officers posted with PSUs/Statutory/Autonomous bodies etc. on deputation basis, at the time of their initial constitution could retain the General Pool Accommodation for a period of five years only and in view of the fact that such period of five years had come to an end in the case of AERA, the respondent could not retain the subject quarter after 11.05.2014. In support of such submissions, reliance is placed upon Union of India Vs. Rasila Ram and Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 623.