The unauthorized retention of government quarters by a retiree incurs penal rent; rights to occupy such accommodations cease upon retirement, regardless of ongoing litigation.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

This As a prelude to this judgment, we are quoting what the Apex Court observed in Union of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar , 2021 INSC 382:

“The right to shelter does not mean right to Government accommodation. The Government accommodation is meant for serving officers and officials and not to the retirees as a benevolence and distribution of largesse....”

To add to the above, squatting on the public property post retirement or cessation of entitlement has become a national menace, now a days.

This Intra-Court appeal by the State and its officials seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 05.12.2023 whereby respondent retiree’s WPC (OAC) No.2818 of 2010 having been favoured, the following relief has been accorded to him:

“6.1. It is found that in terms of the said order, Petitioner vacated the quarter on 07.04.2006. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner was never issued with any notice directing him to vacate the quarter till 27.12.2005, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited (supra) so followed by this Court, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is not liable to pay penal rent till 20.01.2006 i.e. the date fixed in notice dated 27.12.2005 for vacation of the quarter. As per the considered view of this Court, Petitioner is only liable to pay penal rent for the period from 21.01.2006 to 07.04.2006, when he vacated the quarter. This Court while holding so, directs the Opp. Party Nos.2 & 4 to release the withheld gratuity amount of the Petitioner along with interest @7% per annum as due and admissible by recovering the penal rent from the Petitioner for the period from 21.01.2006 to 07.04.2006 and the normal rent for the period from 01.03.2002 to 20.01.2006. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed by Opp. Pasty Nos.2 & 4 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order...”

2. Learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently argues that retention of official quarters by a retired employee beyond the permissible limits is a serious matter; such retention causes a great hardship to the officiating employees who have a legitimate claim to occupy such quarters soon after posting; the provisions Orissa Service Code provide for levying penal rents/damages in cases of overstaying; learned Single Judge having failed to approach the matter in a right perspective, the impugned order suffers from a legal infirmity warranting interference at our hands. Learned counsel appearing for the retired employee vehemently resists the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured. He presses into service the rulings relied upon by the learned Single Judge.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

3.1. BRIEF FACT MATRIX OF THE CASE

(i) The respondent who was in the occupation of official quarters during service retired on 28.02.2002 on superannuation. However, he retained the quarters much beyond his retirement. The ADM-cum-Estate Officer issued a coercive notice dated 27.12.2005. In petitioner’s W.P.(C) No.4505 of 2006, a learned Single Judge, vide order dated 31.03.2006, granted a period of seven days for vacating the quarters. Accordingly, he vacated on 07.04.2006.

(ii) The respondent was slapped with a demand notice dated 15.05.2006 levying a penal rent of Rs.1,34,947/- for the unauthorized occupation of the quarters, i.e., during the period between 28.02.2002 and 07.04.2006. Since that amount was not remitted, his gratuity was withheld. Hi filed O.A No.267(C) of 2010. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 04.03.2010, disposed off the same directing the authorities to take a decision on respondent’s claim for exemption f