ORDER

Regarding Recovery of Licence Fee

1. Pursuant to this Courts order dated 28-11-1996 (See below at p. 214), Mr. Harcharanjit Singh, Director of Estates has placed on record a statement in relation to recovery of licence fee/damages. In para 2 of the statement, it is stated that the number of cases against whom arrears are due are 6913 and an amount of Rs 10.68 crores is to he recovered from them on account of licence fee/damages. Out of these 3109 cases are such where the permanent/present addresses of the retired government servant are not available and, as such, efforts are being made to obtain information regarding the permanent/ present address from the Department from where the employee has superannuated/retired. Of the remaining 3804 cases action under PP Act has been initiated in 1152 cases.

2. We are not satisfied with the efforts made by the Director of Estates in recovering the government dues. The Director of Estates shall initiate proceedings against all 6913 persons, if not already done, indicating the amount due from them and the Department from which they retired. Where the address is known to the Estate Office, that may be given. The Estate Office shall serve the persons through the Department from where they retired. The Department is supposed to know the address because the pension is remitted to the retired persons regularly. We have no doubt that every Department whose employee has not paid government dues shall assist in the recovery of the money and give the correct address to the Estate Office. In case the correct address is not available or the Estate Office is not in a position to serve despite efforts, then the person may be served by substituted service. After completing the recovery proceedings, the recovery warrant be sent to the competent authority for making recovery as arrears that he requires about 2 months time to initiate proceeding against all the person. We give 2 months time. The matter to be listed for compliance on 26-3-1997.

3. The Director of Estates present in Court further states that there are 5 cases where the persons are not occupying the same houses regarding which the licence fee/damages are due to the Government. He states that it was on this basis that notices to them were not sent indicating either to pay the amount or leave the government houses. He further states that the needful will now be done in due course.

Reg. Sub-letting

4. Mr. Harcharanjit Singh, Director of Estates has placed on record report dated 13-9-1996 in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 31-7-1996 regarding enquiry into sub-letting of General Pool Residential Accommodation in New Delhi. In para 3 it is stated that 40,928 quarters were inspected. 4194 quarters were suspected to be sub-letted. Notices were issued to all the allottees. After considering the replies, the allotment of 1085 quarters was cancelled. It is further stated in para 4 of the report that under the allotment rules, the aggrieved allottees can appeal to the appellate authority, that is Director of Estates within 60 days. Only 451 such appeals have been filed so far. In all the cases, Director of Estates has fixed the date for hearing.

5. Rule 15-A has been inserted under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 by the Notification dated 16-8-1996 as published in the Government Gazette dated 31-8-1996. The said rule is as under : "15-A. Sub-letting and vacation of government accommodation. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in any other law for the time being in force, no government servant shall sub-let, lease or otherwise allow occupation by any other person of government accommodation which has been allotted to him.

(2) A government servant shall, after the cancellation of his allotment of government accommodation vacate the same within the time-limit prescribed by the allotting authority."

6. It is thus obvious that a government servant who sub-lets the other government accommodation or otherwise allows occupation b