T. JEEVANANDAM Vs. REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order passed in O.A. No. 1163 of 2018, dtd. 10/3/2023 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, and consequently to direct the second respondent to repay the withheld amount from the petitioner's gratuity with due interest.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he worked as Sec. Supervisor in the office of the first respondent and retired from service on 30/4/2015. During the course of his employment, he was allotted a house bearing Door No. 62 in EFP Staff Quarters for dwelling. Subsequently, he made a request for retention of the Quarters and the same was ordered upto 31/10/2015 by order dtd. 19/10/2015. However, due to family dispute, he came out from the said Quarters even in the month of August, 2015 and also intimated the same to the respondents Office on 21/10/2015 and requested to take possession of the said Quarters after completion of retention period that is 31/10/2015. The first respondent, without considering his request, sent a letter dtd. 29/10/2015 by directing the petitioner to handover the possession of the Quarters to the care-taker stating that the retention period expires on 31/10/2015. Again, the first respondent sent another letter dtd. 16/11/2015 by directing the petitioner to handover the possession of the Quarters to the care-taker immediately otherwise further action will be initiated for eviction. After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner issued reply dtd. 25/11/2015 requesting the respondents to take action for eviction of the Quarters and return the withheld amount of retirement benefits. However, on 4/12/2015 the first respondent sent a memorandum directing the petitioner to vacate the Quarters and hand over the possession to the care-taker along with inventory. The petitioner had given reply for the aforesaid memorandum through his letter dtd. 4/12/2015 by indicating his family dispute. Thereafter, the first respondent issued the eviction notice dtd. 1/2/2016 and also sent a letter to the Manager, State Bank of India, ESI/EPF Cell, Centralized Pension Processing Centre to recover a sum of Rs.34,520.00 in three instalments as Rs.14,094.00 in May 2016, Rs.14,094.00 in June, 2016 and Rs.6,332.00 in July 2016 from his pension amount for using the Quarters allotted to him. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 18475 of 2016 before this Court and the same was closed on 28/6/2018 with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to redress his grievances. Subsequently, on 6/8/2018, the second respondent sent a letter to the petitioner by directing to recover and remit a sum of Rs.34,520.00 towards the market rent for four months from 1/11/2015 to 29/12/2016. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the petitioner has filed O.A.No. 1163 of 2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and the same was dismissed on 10/3/2023. As against the said impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed. According to the petitioner, recovery order from the Dearness Relief is illegal as per Rule 73 (7) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(3.) When the said writ petition was taken up for hearing at the stage of admission, this Court has heard the learned counsel for petitioner elaborately and taken up the case for final disposal.