J.P. VISHWAKARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made to an order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A.No.509/2012, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, challenging recovery of Rs.1,34,100/- on account of damage/penal rent due to over stay in a Government accommodation after retirement of petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner retired from Government service on 30.11.2008 and was required to vacate the Government accommodation. However, on an application submitted by him he was granted permission to retain the quarter till February 2009. The petitioner retained the quarter even after February 2009, did not vacate the accommodation till 29.9.2010, as a result he has been charged damage/penal rent w.e.f. 1.3.2009. Inter alia contending that he was orally granted permission to over stay and further that the amount of penal rent cannot be deducted from the pensionary benefits, the application was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal on examining the facts of the case found that the petitioner was granted permission to occupy the quarter till end of February 2009 and thereafter from 1st March, 2009 he was not granted any permission. His contention that he was granted oral permission to over stay in Government accommodation was found not established. The Tribunal after relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, ONGC and another v. A.S.Iyer and others [(2013) 1 SCC (L and S) 675] has found that on account of over staying in a Government accommodation after the due date of allotment, the Government is entitled to recover the damages and penal rent and the amount can be deducted from the pensionary benefits and rejected the claim. In doing so, the tribunal has not committed any error.

(3.) In view of reasons given by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere into the matter in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the arrears of penal rent cannot be deducted from pensionary benefits is concerned, the said ground is unsustainable in view of the law laid down in the case of A.S.Iyer (supra). As far as error in working out the amount is concerned, in para 8 of the order the Tribunal has already directed for reconsideration and to work out the arrears after considering the representation of the petitioner.