FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.

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.

4. On the other hand on behalf of the respondent learned Counsel placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Wing Commander R.R. Hingorani (Retd.) (1987) 1 SCC 551 contends that in so far as pension and commuted pension is concerned it was not open to the petitioners to withhold or make deduction in respect of the compensation from the pension amount. To that extent the order of the petitioners or of the Estate Officer was clearly without jurisdiction. It is also pointed out that it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal based on the finding that the petitioners had not taken any steps for eviction of the respondent and considering his failing eye sight of the Respondent, it cannot be said to be illegal or disclosing an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

5. To answer the question we may only refer to a few dates. The respondent was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) some time on 6th May, 1996. A show cause notice came to be issued to the respondent on 13th May, 1994 on the ground of unauthorised absence. An order for eviction came to be passed on 10th June, 1994. The respondent aggrieved preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. By an order of 24th March, 1995 the impugned order of 10th June, 1994 was set aside. The Appellate Authority was, however, pleased to grant liberty to the petitioners to issue fresh notice under Section 4(2) of the Act. A fresh order of eviction came to be passed on 31st October, 1995. That was also subject matter of another Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which once again by order dated 6th March, 1996 set aside the order with a direction to issue fresh show cause notice on the ground of sub-letting as that was fresh ground sought to be raised by the petitioner No.1. A charge sheet came to be served on the respondent No.1 on 13th September, 1996. Pursuant to the charge sheet and the enquiry held it was held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges established, punishment by way of penalty of removal from service was passed on the respondent by order dated 15th October, 1997. The respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal against that punishment. The Disciplinary Authority was pleased to reduced the penalty to one of compulsory retirement by order of 5th June, 1998.

6. It is subsequent to this order that by order dated 20th Octob