SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6183

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Sunita Parmod Shoriya – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.621/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Hamid Patel
For the Respondents: Shri Sachin Patil

A temporary allotment of government accommodation for a limited period on humanitarian grounds does not confer any right of extension or continuance, especially when the original cause no longer exists.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Challenge to eviction order and recovery of damage rent - Temporary allotment of MES quarter for six months on pregnancy grounds - Application for extension rejected - Recovery of damage rent for unauthorized occupation - No right to extension beyond temporary period - Temporary allotment does not confer any right of continuance - Each case decided on its own facts - No violation of Articles 14 and 16. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Central Government employee, was allotted an MES quarter on temporary basis for six months on account of her pregnancy. She applied for extension before the expiry of the period, but the respondents issued a notice to vacate and also a recovery order for damage rent for the period of unauthorized occupation. The applicant challenged these orders, alleging discrimination as other similarly situated non-MES employees were allowed to continue.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the temporary allotment on humanitarian grounds did not give the applicant any right of extension, especially since the cause (pregnancy) no longer existed. The application for extension was not forwarded through proper channel. The recovery of damage rent for unauthorized occupation was in accordance with rules.

Issues: Whether the applicant had a right to extension of the temporary allotment; whether the respondents' action was discriminatory; whether the recovery of damage rent was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that temporary allotment for a limited period on humanitarian grounds does not confer any right of extension or continuance. The applicant's case was not identical to others, and each case is decided on its own facts. The recovery of damage rent for unauthorized occupation is in accordance with rules.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. arguments on temporary allotment and extension rights. (Para 8 , 9)
2. no right to extension of temporary accommodation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. application dismissed; liberty to apply afresh. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

ORDER

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

“8.i. This Hon'ble Tribunal may please allow this Original Application.

8.ii This Hon'ble Tribunal, Mumbai Bench may please set aside a. Order of Intimation for Vacation of Quarter No P 32/04 at SPDC Defence Colony Mankhurd issued vide Memo No 2003/115/E2B dated 22.04.2025 and letter No. 2003/190/E2B dated 10.06.2025 issued by Asst Engineer (Civil) BSO (NW) O/o Garrison Engineer (NW), Military Engineer Services Mankhurd, Mumbai

400088.

b. Recovery order No. 2011/133/E2B dated 12.06.2025 of Rs 1,80,900/(wrongly shown as Rs.32210/-) as damage rent for period of January 2025 to May 2025 issued by the Garrison Engineer (NW), Military Engineer Services.

8.iii Direct the respondents to renew the GATE PASSES of mother and husband of applicant which are going to expire on 30.07.2025

8.iv Cost of this application may kindly be allowed.

8.v Any other relief (s) as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and her husband are both Central Government employees. The applicant is working as a Upper Division Clerk (UDC) at INS Tanaji, CABS, Mankhurd. They have two daughters. Since both spouses are employed, the applicant’s mother, aged about 60 years and dependent on the applicant, resides with them.

2.2 On 29th December, 2023, the applicant was allotted Quarter No. P-38/09 in Naval Staff Quarters at SPDC Defence Colony, Mankhurd, Mumbai, situated on the fourth floor. On medical grounds concerning the applicant and her aged mother, the applicant requested both the Navy authorities as well as the Garrison Engineer, Mankhurd, for allotment of a non-MES quarter on the ground or first floor. The said request was considered, and the applicant was allotted Quarter No. P-32/04, Type-II, situated on the first floor of Government MD Accommodation at SPDC Defence Colony, Mankhurd, Mumbai, for a period of six months on a temporary basis. The applicant occupied the said quarter on

1st June, 2024.

2.3 On 14th November, 2024, the applicant requested extension of the said accommodation, as it is a common practice that such requests are generally considered, particularly when a large number of MES quarters are lying vacant. However, no action was taken on the said request. Subsequently, the Garrison Engineer issued an intimation dated 22nd April, 2025 (Annexure A-1), directing the applicant to vacate the quarter. It is submitted that several such quarters have been allotted to non-MES employees, who have been occupying them for years.

2.4 A recovery order was also issued demanding Rs. 1,80,900/- (though incorrectly reflected as Rs. 32,210/-) towards damage rent for the period from January 2025 to May 2025 by the Garrison Engineer (NW), Military Engineer Services, Mankhurd, Mumbai – 400088, vide order dated 12th June, 2025. No such recovery has been effected against similarly placed non-MES employees who continue to occupy such quarters for long durations.

2.5 The reason stated in the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is that the quarters are required for newly recruited MES staff. However, it is submitted that a substantial number of MES quarters are lying vacant, details of which have already been furnished in the Original Application.

2.6 The applicant had sought extension of the said first-floor quarter on medical grounds. In view of the availability of vacant quarters and the fact that similarly situated non-MES employees have been allowed to continue in occupation for years, the action of evicting the applicant and levying damage rent is arbitrary and illegal. There cannot be differential treatment in identical circumstances.

2.7 It is submitted tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top