The retention of government accommodation must align with established rules allowing flexibility for fairness and employee welfare.

JUDGMENT :

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India impugning order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.60/911/2020, whereby the Tribunal had quashed the notice dated 03.09.2020, letters dated 22.09.2020 and 03.11.2020 & order dated 03.11.2020 (Annexures P-9, P-11 to P-13 respectively), vide which penal rent stood imposed upon respondent No.2 w.e.f. 16.07.2020 to 02.12.2020. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had also directed the petitioners to pass a fresh order charging normal license fee for the aforenoted period and the amount deposited by respondent No.2 was directed to be refunded to his legal representatives.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 was at the first instance entitled to retain government accommodation only till 18.06.2020, which had been further extended on account of the Covid-19 pandemic to 15.07.2020. Thereafter, respondent No.2 was liable to pay the penal rent for having overstayed till 02.12.2020, that is, the date whereon the accommodation was vacated. The Tribunal had failed to interpret the Rules and the Office Memorandum(s) in the correct perspective and erroneously set aside the well reasoned orders imposing penal rent on respondent No.2. He also submitted that Rule 43 of the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 2017’) restricts the period of retention of government accommodation to a period of three years and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside.

3. Heard.

4. Respondent No.2 was working as Joint Director (Contracts) at the office of the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone, Military Engineering Services, Ministry of Defence and posted at ‘N’ Area Airport Road, Chandigarh on 19.09.2011. He applied for general pool residential accommodation (hereinafter referred to as ‘accommodation’) on 27.04.2012 and was allotted House No.28- B, Type-V, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh vide order dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure P2). On transfer to HQ CE Leh Zone w.e.f. 19.10.2015, he applied for retention of accommodation at Chandigarh which was accepted. Subsequently, he was transferred from HQ CE Leh Zone to Udhampur Zone on 18.06.2018 (both postings were non-family stations). Respondent No.2 was granted permission to retain the accommodation at Chandigarh till 18.06.2020. In view of the Covid- 19 pandemic, extension was granted to all allottees to retain Government accommodation upto 30.06.2020, which was further extended to 15.07.2020. Thereafter, vide communication dated 09.07.2020 (Annexure P-8) respondent No.2 was directed to vacate the accommodation by 17.07.2020, failing which market/damage rent would be levied and eviction proceedings would be initiated. As respondent No. 2 failed to vacate the accommodation, he was issued notice to show cause to answer as to why an order of eviction be not passed against him, as he was in unauthorized occupation of the accommodation. Respondent No.2 submitted his reply on 11.09.2020 (Annexure P-10) and relied upon the office memorandum dated 10.04.2018 (Annexure P-5) to submit that he was entitled to retain the accommodation at concessional rates till 30.06.2021. However, the petitioners in their letter dated 22.09.2020 (Annexure P-11) stated that the order dated 10.04.2018 was not applicable to his case. Vide letter dated 03.11.2020 (Annexure P-12), petitioner No.1 had offered an opportunity of personal hearing to respondent No.2 to appear on 24.11.2020 and after affo