UNION OF INDIA Vs. SARJERAO VITHAL PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The respondent was in the employment of the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that Respondent was in unauthorised occupation and consequently would have to pay compensation in terms of the various Notifications issued by the petitioners. An order accordingly came to be passed. Aggrieved by that order the Respondent preferred O.A., O.A. No.62 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which by the impugned order dated 31st January, 2008 allowed the O.A.. with the direction to the petitioners to charge only double license fee from the date of four months after his retirement and till he vacates the quarters in question. There was a further direction to petitioners to release the remaining pension and pensionary benefits which they have withheld wrongly within a period of two months with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(3.) The petitioners aggrieved by the said order have approached this Court. On behalf of the petitioners learned Counsel submits that the impugned order suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record in as much as it was not open to the Tribunal to have interfered with the compensation considering that the Respondent was and continued to be in unauthorised occupation of the premises and considering Office Memorandum of 31st March, 1992 and Office Memorandum of 30th November, 1995 and 23rd July, 2002. The amounts as claimed by the petitioners were in terms of the said office memorandums.