UNION OF INDIA Vs. R K PATHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first writ petition, i. e. , Writ Petition No. 3936 of 2002, is filed by Union of India against a Member of the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The second petition i. e. , Writ Petition No. 5983 of 2002 is filed against Union of India by the same member (hereinafter referred to as respondent ). Sine both these petitions are concerning the same controversy viz. , service quarters, both of them are being heard and decided together.

(2.) MR. Rana, learned Senior Counsel, alongwith Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate, appears on behalf of Union of India and Mr. Jain appears for the respondent R. K. Pathania in both the matters. The Writ Petition No. 3936 of 2002 seeks to challenge the order dated 7-6-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as C. A. T.) allowing the original application (O. A.) No. 448 of 2002 filed by the respondent. The second petition i. e. Writ Petition No. 5983 of 2002 also challenges a part of the same order dated 7-6-2002 and also the order dated 22-1-1998 passed by the Assistant Estate Manager of Union of India leading to the above original application before the C. A. T. This petition was filed on 18-9-2002 but a copy thereof was given to the Counsel for the Union of India yesterday only. The Counsel for the Union of India has, therefore, proceeded on the basis of denial since Writ Petition No. 3936 of 2002 was to be heard forthwith as directed by the Apex Court. We would further like to add that during the course of hearing of these petitions, Mr. Jain tendered an amendment to the second petition. We have permitted the amendment so that his entire cause as perceived by him gets reflected in his petition.

(3.) THE facts leading to these petitions are as follows:---The respondent has been in service of the Union of India (Income Tax Department) after retiring from the Armed Forces. He has been a Member of Income Tax Settlement Commission since December, 2001, prior whereto, he was a member of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. During that service, he was transferred from Mumbai to Delhi on 18-4-1995. He was required to vacate the premises then occupied by him, namely the flat bearing No. E-35 situated in Hyderabad Estate, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai. Under the relevant rules, however, he was eligible to continue for a period of two months thereafter on a nominal rent. This was to facilitate appropriate arrangements for shifting and/or alternate accommodation. In the event, the person concerned remains in occupation of the particular flat thereafter also he is permitted to occupy the flat for further six months on compassionate ground though with a little higher rent.