The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict application of the CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 1977, particularly Rule 7.7 and Rule 7.9, in determining the allotment of government accommodation to spouses working in the Council's service at the same station, and the imposition of penal licence fee under Rule 18 for non-compliance with the rules.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Vinay Kumar petitioner has preferred present writ petition seeking setting-aside of the order dated 11.7.2017 (Annexure P-3), wherein challenge was to the order dated 10.6.2015 (Annexure A-1), requiring him to deposit penal licence fee @ Rs. 40,519/- per month amounting to Rs. 16,22,067/- pertaining to the Government Accommodation No.A-9 Type V for retaining the same w.e.f. 1.6.2011 to 1.10.2014.

2. Mr.V.K.Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the wife of the petitioner, working as Superintendent in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, was allotted Government Accommodation, i.e., H.No.213, PEC Campus, Sector 12, Chandigarh. The petitioner was transferred to CSIO-CSIR and started residing with his wife in PEU Campus. Vide application dated 23.12.1993 (Annexure A-2), he submitted a request for release of the House Rent Allowance (for short “HRA”). He was granted the HRA w.e.f. 1.3.1993. In the meantime, a complaint was made against the petitioner for unauthorised withdrawal of the HRA. In view thereof, a show cause notice dated 29.3.2005 (Annexure A-3) was served upon the petitioner as to why the recovery of HRA drawn unauthorisedly from CSIO w.e.f. 1.3.1993 be not recovered from him. A detailed reply (Annexure A-4) was submitted. The authorities, vide order dated 26.2.2009 (Annexure A-5), stopped the HRA of the petitioner. As per the prevailing rules, i.e., Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for unauthorisedly drawing the HRA to the tune of Rs. 1,96,677/-. The response submitted was not found to be satisfactory, but later on as per letter dated 14.11.2007, he had agreed to deposit the HRA. Resultantly, the charges, vide order dated 13.12.2010, were dropped. During the interregnum, some dispute allegedly between the husband and wife had erupted. The petitioner submitted an application dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure A-10) for allotment of CSIO accommodation. On consideration of his application, accommodation A-9, Type V was allotted vide letter dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure A-11). Possession of the same was taken on 26.5.2011 (Annexure A-12).

3. On 30.9.2014 (Annexure A-13), the petitioner vacated the aforementioned accommodation, but was surprised to receive the show cause notice dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure A-14) on account of violation of Rule 7.7 of CSIR (Allotment of Accommodation) Rules, 1997. The said rule envisages that an employee is not entitled to accommodation when the wife is already in occupation of residential accommodation. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to pay penal fee of Rs. 40,519/- per month amounting to Rs. 16,22,067/-. The petitioner submitted representation dated 8.12.2014 (Annexure A-15), which was rejected. Vide order dated 10.6.2015 (Annexure A-1), the petitioner was directed to deposit the aforementioned amount. The petitioner assailed the said order on the ground that there is no provision in the relevant allotment rules that the husband and wife cannot be allowed to have separate accommodation. According to the petitioner, the only provision incorporated is that if two separate accommodations have been allotted, then in that eventuality, one has to be surrendered, which, as noticed above, had been done.

4. It was next contended that it is a matter of record that no eviction proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were ever initiated. The CAT has committed illegality and perversity in accepting the stand of the State by relying upon the aforementioned rules. There is no finding with regard to the said rules. The reference has also been made to letter dated 27.3.2006 (at page 190 of the paper book), to contend that the penal rate of rent @ Rs. 40,519/- could not be charged, whereas penal rent was Rs. 255/- per Sq.