CHIEF POST MASTER KANPUR Vs. MOHAMMAD SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6.5.1999 copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 retired as postman on 19.5.1995 but he continued occupying the official accommodation in his possession and hence the rent of Rs. 900 was ordered to be recovered from his pension for the house rent with interest. The respondent No. 1 filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed this petition by the impugned order and held that the recovery of house rent cannot be made from the respondent's pension but it can be made by other means.

(3.) On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution by interfering with the impugned order. However, we are informed that the respondent No. 1 is still occupying the official accommodation even four and a half years after his retirement. This is indeed shocking. We are of the opinion that the respondent No. 1 must vacate the official accommodation in his possession immediately. This tendency of Government servants or employees of public sector undertakings of continuing to occupy the official accommodation even after retirement or transfer has become wide spread and must now be stopped. It has to be realised when a person retires or is transferred, he should vacate the official accommodation in his possession within a reasonable period otherwise his successor will have no place to live in. There are cases coming up before this Court where a Government employee continued to retain the official accommodation even several years after his retirement or transfer. This practice has to be deprecated and must be stopped now.