Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mohan Lal Atwal – Appellant
Versus
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan – Respondent
O.A./366/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 12 O.A./366/2024 (JAIPUR) No of Adjournment: 2 [ RECOVERY ]
[ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Order Dated: 10/09/2024 Court No.: 1 MOHAN LAL ATWAL Vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) Advocate : Shri Hawa Singh
Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal
The applicant retired on 30.06.2023 from the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies) fron Central School No. 2, Ajmer. The applicant was allowed retention of the residential house Type-3/1 that was already alloted to him in the school premises, from the date 01.07.2023 to 31.12.2023. After that, he had filed an application for extension of time beyond 31.12.2023 to vacate the said house, however, the same was declined. Thereafter, he had filed OA No. 93/2024 wherein he had stated that he is supposed to vacate the government accomodation within six months' from the date of retirement which had expired on 31.12.2023. He averred that his own house has been constructed, but because of laying of sewerage line in his colony he cannot shift for few more months, accordingly, he sought to occupy the said government accomodation for few more months till his own house becomes habitable. In support of the same, he attached the certificate of the local member of the municipality. He also undertook to pay double the amount of rent for the period beyond 01.01.2024. This Tribubal vide order dated 20.02.2024 directed as follows:
"List on 09.05.2024. Till then, respondents are directed not to take any coercive step to vacate the government accomodation. During this period, respondents are free to charge double the amount of rent as undertaken by the applicant before us."
On the next date of hearing i.e. on 09.05.2024, learned counsel for the applicant made a statement before us that the applicant has already vacated the accomodation and handed over the keys and matter was disposed off. Thereafter, by way of, impugned order dated 25.05.2024, respondents have imposed damage rent to the tune of Rs.
134810/-, hence, the present OA.
Shri Hawa Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argues that there is no provision in their rules to charge double amount of the rent upon occupation of the government accomodation by the employee beyond the period of six months after the retirement of the employee and they cannot accept the same. He has pointed out to the OM dated 07.09.20216 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi which states that "In partial modification of this Directorate's Office Memorandum of even number, dated 22nd July, 2016 on the subject noted above, the undersigned is directed to state that the matter of charging damages in cases of unathorised occupation of GPRA quarters has been reviewed by the competent authority and it has been decided to revise the rates of damages for unathorized occupation of general pool residential accomodation for various cities and other stations in the country as below and the revised rates of damages will be applicable to all unathorized occupants as on 1.7.2016 and to those who are subsequently declared unathorized occupant."
Perusal of the above shows that the damages are chargeable in case of "unauthorized occupation of GPRA quarters". In the present case, the applicant had approached this Tribunal for allowing him to extend his stay till the time he shifts to his own house which he had stated had already been constructed but was not habitable as the sewerage line was being laid in his colony which was beyond his control and because of the peculiar circumstances, this Tribunal had granted him concession and allowed him stay only till the next date of hearing that was 09.05.2024. We had also given freedom to the respondents to charge
