HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU OWP No. 1118/2015 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 Uploaded on : 22.01.2026 Hari Krishan Kichloo …..Petitioners Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Saba Atiq, Advocate Vs Union of India & Ors.

.….Respondents Through: Mr. R.S. Jamwal, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL)

01. The petitioner came up with the present writ petition filed on 18.08.2015 by a purported cause of action relatable to charging of rent against him with respect to use and occupation of official accommodation held by the petitioner on account of his employment in Defence Accounts Department as Senior Auditor whereform he superannuated on 31.03.2010 while posted in Defence Pension Disbursing Officer (DPDO), Satwari, Jammu.

02. In connection with his employment in the service, the petitioner was holding accommodation of Quarter No. 315- D (Type-C) in the residential complex of respondent No. 3-

Principal Controller Defence Accounts (Northern Command), Narwal Pain, Satwari, Jammu.

03. On account of his retirement, the petitioner was entitled to retain said allotted quarter up to two months and thereafter in the event of non-vacation to be charged with the normal license fee for the next two months and thereafter twice the normal license fee for the next two months and lastly four times the normal license fee so on so forth.

04. The petitioner, on account of being a Kashmiri Pandit having suffered migration from Kashmir Valley and having no residential house of his own in Jammu or any other part of India, continued to stay in the quarter accommodation so allotted to him on account of his service status by paying the rent at the prescribed rate till eight months post his retirement.

05. The petitioner had solicited the indulgence of respondent No. 3 for allowing the petitioner to continue to be in use and occupation of the said official accommodation post his retirement which request of the petitioner suffered negation on the ground that there was no provision for any such retention to a retiree government employee beyond eight months of retirement.

06. The petitioner was subjected to an order of eviction under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants)

Act, 1988 against which the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Jammu which appeal was disposed of on the technical ground that the appealable order dated 28.12.2010 was not qualifying to be an order under section

5 of the aforesaid Act.

07. Similarly placed Kashmiri Pandits retirees had also assailed identically issue eviction direction/order passed against them in relation to which writ petitions OWP No. 1581/2012 and OWP No. 1617/2012 came to be preferred before this Court which resulted in orders for accommodating the petitioners in the said two writ petitions.

08. The compliance of the writ court orders in said two petitions was carried out at the end of the writ respondents therein which include the present respondents in the writ petition.

09. On the parity of the treatment as accorded to the writ petitioners in the said two writ petitions, the petitioner came forth that his case cannot be treated on different footing in the matter of being charged license fee with respect to post retirement retention and use and occupation of the quarter in reference which came to be ultimately vacated by the petitioner on 04.02.2013.

10. The cause of action accrued when the petitioner’s pension came to suffer deduction purportedly on account of recovery of license fee/rent as damage rent w.e.f 01.12.2010 to 31.12.2012 at the rate of Rs. 9555/- per month for 25 months totaling Rs. 2,39,295/-

11. It is against the aforesaid recovery that the petitioner has come forward assailing the rent bill No. 6168/2013 aiming to recover the amount of Rs. 2,39,295/- in total. The petitioner has solicited a writ of mandamus unto the respondents to consider his case in parity with the case