The necessity of issuing a notice before imposing penal rent upon government employees for occupying quarters post-allotment cancellation is affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.30.10.2025, affidavit filed by Opp. Party No. 3 in Court be kept in record. Copy of the same is provided to the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court.

3. Heard Mr. R.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging office order dtd.16.08.2018 so issued under Annexure-6 by Opp. Party No. 3. Vide the said order Petitioner has been assessed with penal rent for the period beyond 17.01.2010 till 18.12.2018, when Petitioner vacated the quarter in question.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that while continuing as a A.F.A.- cum-Under Secretary to Govt., Department of Higher Education, Petitioner was allotted with quarter bearing No. D-9/5 in Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar. However, since Petitioner was transferred to Kalahandi as Commercial Tax Officer vide order dtd.23.04.2008 and joined on 28.04.2008, considering the request made by the Petitioner and the resolution issued by the Govt. in the G.A. Department, Petitioner vide letter dtd.03.10.2008 issued under Annexure-14 was allowed to retain the quarter by paying normal rent for a period of three (3) years. It is contended that basing on such letter issued on 03.10.2008 under Annexure-14, Petitioner remained in occupation of the allotted quarter as before.

6. It is contended that thereafter Petitioner was never issued with any notice directing him to vacate the quarter and Petitioner accordingly remained in occupation of the quarter by paying the normal rent, which was also duly accepted till the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018. However, after his retirement, vide order dtd.16.08.2018 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was held liable to pay normal licence fee for the period from 28.07.2008 to 16.10.2009 and 17.10.2009 to 16.11.2009 and standard licence fee from 17.11.2009 to 16.01.2010 and thereafter 5 times of the standard licence fee w.e.f.17.01.2010, the present writ petition was filed inter alia challenging the said order.

6.1. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter, passed an interim order on 14.02.2019, holding therein that no recovery can be made. The said interim order was also allowed to continue.

6.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since after expiry of the period of three (3) years, so allowed vide letter dt.03.10.2008 under Annexure-14, Petitioner was never issued with any notice whatsoever directing him to vacate the quarter and he remained in occupation of the quarter with due payment and receipt of the normal licence fee till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018, the order passed under Annexure-6 and consequential demand issued in that regard is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is contended that no penalty can be imposed, if the occupier of the quarter is not issued with any notice directing him to vacate the quarter. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vs. Sadasiv Mohanty (1997) 3 SCC 211. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 6 & 8 of the said judgment has held as follows:-

“6. The question, therefore, is: whether the Tribunal’s view is correct in law? It is seen that under Rule 104 of the Rules, the Government have reserved its power to regulate the allotment of the houses, subject to the terms and conditions, as may be regulated under the instructions issued in furtherance thereof by the Government. Rule 11 deals with allotment of the house to the officers either owned by the Government or leased by the Government, as the case may be. Rule 2(ii) provides, by general or special order, for fixing fee in excess of what is prescribed in clause (b) referred to earlier. Clause (6) provides that where the Government servant does not vacate the residence, after cancellation