IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that matters concerning retention of official accommodation by a former employee fall under service matters as defined by the Administrative Tribunals Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, ACJ.

Petitioner was appointed on a Grade ‘D’ post of ‘Darwan’ in Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, in the year 2008. Punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him by the competent authority vide order dated 16.08.2022. Petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 16.08.2022, in an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2022. Petitioner, thereafter, filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and also the Appellate Authority. The Original Application filed by the petitioner is registered as O.A. No. 3251 of 2023, and is pending before the Circuit Bench, Nainital of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. In the said Original Application, petitioner moved a misc. application, seeking a direction to the respondents in Original Application not to increase the rate of house rent pursuant to the letter dated 29.07.2023, and further to allow the applicant to continue in the accommodation as per old rates. The said misc. application was numbered as M.A. No. 3818 of 2023, which has been dismissed by learned Tribunal vide order dated 20.11.2023. Thus feeling aggrieved by rejection of his misc. application, petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Petitioner’s application has been rejected by learned Tribunal by placing reliance upon the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Rasila Ram and others, (2001) 10 SCC 623.

4. In the case of Rasila Ram (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an order passed by the competent authority under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 3(q)(v) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

5. In the present case, the facts are entirely different. No eviction order has been passed against the petitioner under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Since the order of estate officer appointed under the said Act was not under challenge before the learned Tribunal, therefore, learned Tribunal went astray in dismissing petitioner’s application only on the ground that the dispute is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

6. Admittedly, petitioner was allotted a residential accommodation by the competent authority in the Ordnance Factory, therefore, his prayer made before the Tribunal to permit him to retain the accommodation on the same terms and conditions during pendency of the Original Application before the Tribunal is a “service matter” as defined under Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner could have been granted by learned Tribunal and petitioner could have been permitted to reside in the official accommodation till decision in the Original Application.

7. Petitioner belongs to lower strata of society, and, if forcibly evicted from the official accommodation, then it will cause great hardship to the petitioner and his family members. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioner before learned Tribunal deserved to be allowed and rejection of petitioner’s application has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

8. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated 20.11.2023, passed by learned Tribunal in M.A. No. 3818 of 2023, in Original Application No. 3251 of 2023, and allow the writ petition. The competent authority in Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun, is directed to permit the petitioner to reside in the official accommodation allotted to him for a period of two years or till decision in his Original Application, whichever is earlier, on payment of the same house rent as he was paying while h