JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The petitioners, who were employees of the Supreme Court of India were sent on deputation on 31.08.1990 to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) [hereinafter referred to as the "said Tribunal"]. The said Tribunal has its office at Janpath, New Delhi. The petitioners as a part of their employment with the Supreme Court of India were in occupation of Government accommodation from the general pool. The question that arises in the present petition is with regard to their right to retain the same during the period of their deputation with the said Tribunal as also the question of their liability to pay license fee therefore. It is to be noted that these four petitioners ultimately returned to the Supreme Court by the end of 1994.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that in the first instance, the petitioners would not be liable to pay anything more than the normal license fee in respect of the period on which they were on deputation with regard to the premises they continued to occupy during that period.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 submits that, as per the policy, the petitioners were liable to pay license fee at the market rate beyond the two year period which was a relaxation which had been granted to the petitioners by the office memorandum dated 03.12.1990. Learned counsel for the said respondents also referred to the parent guidelines which were formulated by the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation (CCA) in its meeting held on 12.09.1985. These guidelines are to be found in the office memorandum dated 24.10.1985 which has been handed over by the learned counsel for the said respondents and which is taken on record.
3. Before I examine the policy as contained in the office memorandum of 24.10.1985 and the subsequent office memorandum of 03.12.1990, it would be pertinent to note the circumstances under which the petitioners were on deputation with the said Tribunal. On 23.07.1990, the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India addressed a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India on the subject of filling up of posts for the said Tribunal. In that letter, it was indicated that five (5) posts were necessary and they were required to be filled up on deputation basis immediately. Insofar as the post of Registrar of the Tribunal was concerned, it was clearly indicated in the letter that the Chairman of the said Tribunal had approved the name of Shri Gulshan Rai Sharma, who was at that time working as Assistant Registrar in the Supreme Court of India. Insofar as the other posts were concerned, by the said letter, the Ministry requested the Supreme Court to suggest suitable names from amongst its employees. It was indicated that initially the period of deputation would be for one year which would be extended from time to time as required. This was followed by another letter dated 03.08.1990 from the said Ministry to the Supreme Court reiterating its earlier request for immediately deputing officers for filling up the posts indicated therein and to direct them to report to the Ministry latest by 16.08.1990. Thereafter, by a letter dated 31.08.1990, an Office Order No.217/190 was issued by the Supreme Court under the signature of the Registrar (Admn. J) to the effect that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India had placed the services of the officers mentioned therein, who were members of the staff of the Supreme Court Registry, at the disposal of the said Tribunal on usual terms and conditions of deputation w.e.f. the afternoon of 31.08.1990. Six names were mentioned in that letter which included the four petitioners herein. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners were placed at the disposal (on deputation) of the said Tribunal. It is clear from these documents that the petitioners had, in fact, been selected and sent to the said Tribunal by the Supreme Court. At the point at which they were so sent on deputation, they already occupied accommodation under the general pool.
4. The question thereafter arose as to whether they would be entitled to retain the said accommodation or not. In this context, several letters were addressed, three of which are of some importance. These are dated 03.12.1990, 13.08.1993 and 09.09.1993. The office memorandum dated 03.12.1990 reads as under:-
"No. 11013 (D)/11/90-Pol.IV Government of India Directorate of Estates New Delhi, the 3.12.1990 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Eligibility of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal for allotment from General Pool in Delhi.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Ministry of Water Resource Development have informed that the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal has been set up with Headquarters in New Delhi under Water Disputes Act, 1956 (33 of 195). The question of eligibility of the Chairman, Members and other staff of the Tribunal for residential accommodation from the General Pool has been examined. Since the Tribunal is a statutory organisation, they are not eligible for allotment of General Pool residential accommodation. However, in accordance with the existing guidelines of the CCA approved in its meeting on 12.9.85, those government officials whose services are made available to the Tribunal at the time of initial constitution will be allowed to retain general pool accommodation in their occupation for a period of two years from the date of initial constitution of the Tribunal i.e. from 2.6.90 to 1.6.92 on payment of special license fee by the Tribunal who may recover normal license fee from such officers.
Sd/-
(H.L. Bhatia) Deputy Director of Estates.
Pol.IV"
5. From the aforesaid office memorandum, it is clear that the Directorate of Estates intended that the petitioners, who were on deputation with the Tribunal, were not at all eligible for allotment of general pool residential accommodation. However, in view of the guidelines approved by the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation (CCA) in its meeting on 12.09.1985, such Government officials whose services were made available to the Tribunal would be allowed to retain the general pool accommodation in their occupation for a period of two years, i.e., up to 01.06.1992 on payment of special license fee by the Tribunal, who, in turn, may recover the normal license fee from such officers. Upon a reading of this office memorandum, it becomes clear that as per the Directorate of Estates, even during the period of two years ending with 01.06.1992, the petitioners were liable only to pay normal license fee, while the Tribunal's liability for the said accommodation was to pay special license fee for the said accommodation.
6. Mr Pandey, who appears for respondents 1 & 2, on instructions received from Mr M.N. Sethi, Assistant, submits that special license fee is not the same as market rent/license fee. He further submits that it is lower than market rate/license fee, but higher than the normal license fee. It would be pertinent to refer to the office memorandum dated 24.10.1985 which incorporates the guidelines of 12.09.1985 which has been referred to in the office memorandum of 03.12.1990. The said office memorandum is as under:-
"No. 12016 (2)/82-Pol.IV (VOL.III) (viii) Government of India Directorate of Estates New Delhi, the 24.10.1985 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- Review of guidelines for allotment of general pool accommodation -- Public Sector Undertakings / Statutory bodies / semi-govt. organisations and government servants going on deputation to such undertakings, employees of such undertakings.
Revised guidelines for retention / allotment of accommodation to employees of public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, semi-government organisations and government servants going on deputation to such undertakings were placed before the Cabinet Committee on Accommodation. The Cabinet Committee on Accommodation at its meeting held on 12th September, 1985 has approved the following guidelines:-
i) In view of acute shortage of residential accommodation in General Pool for allotment to officers working in eligible offices, it would not be advisable to permit retention of accommodation / allotment of accommodation by employees of such ineligible organisations.
ii) In future the organisations concerned may be advised to hire suitable private accommodation and make the same available to government officers who are allottees of general pool accommodation and who are going on deputation.
iii) Where services of government officials are made available to corporation / undertakings / organisation at the time of initial constitution, such of the government officers who are allottees of general pool accommodation may be allowed, as a special case, to retain the accommodation for a period of two years.
iv) In all cases market rate of license fee should be recovered from the organisations who may recover normal license fee from the officials.
2. The Committee has also decided that the Ministry of Works & Housing may consider setting apart a block of land for allotment to Public Sector Undertakings for construction of their own group housing complex.
Sd/-
(V.S. Raman) Deputy Director of Estates."
7. These guidelines indicate that the officials, who are on deputation to public sector undertakings, statutory bodies, semi-Government organisations, would be allowed to retain their general pool residential accommodation for a period of two years. It is also clear that the guidelines were being made in view of the acute shortage of residential accommodation in general pool for allotment to the officers working in eligible offices. It is equally clear that the guidelines prescribed that in future the organisations concerned, which includes the Tribunal in question, should hire suitable private accommodation and make the same available to Government officers who are allottees of general pool accommodation and who are going on deputation. This makes it clear that the intention of the CCA was not to render such officers on deputation to become homeless. It was only to shift the liability for providing such accommodation to the organisations to which they would be deputed. It had gone to the extent of requiring the organisations, which includes the present Tribunal, to even provide private accommodation at their own cost. Clause (iv) of the guidelines also makes it clear that in all cases, market rate of license fee should be recovered from the organisations who may recover normal license fee from the officials. Upon a conjoint reading of the office memoranda of 24.10.1985 and 03.12.1990, it immediately becomes clear that there are three different kinds of license fee which have been mentioned. The first is the market rate of license fee which finds mention in the office memorandum of 24.10.1985. The second is the special license fee which finds mention in the office memorandum of 03.12.1990 and the third is the normal license fee which is mentioned in both. Insofar as the office memorandum of 03.12.1990 is concerned, it pertains only to the period up to 01.06.1992 and it prescribes that for that particular period only a special license fee would be charged from the Tribunal, who, in turn, would recover normal license fee from such officers on deputation. Insofar as all other cases are concerned, as indicated in the office memorandum 24.10.1985, the market rate of license fee would be recovered from the organisations which included the said Tribunal, who, in turn, would recover only market rate/license fee from the officers. This makes it clear that there is a cap on recovery of normal license fee insofar as the officers on deputation are concerned. The Directorate of Estates, during the period up to 01.06.1992, can recover only special license fee from the Tribunal. After 01.06.1992, the Directorate of Estates would be entitled to recover market rate of license fee from the said Tribunal. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, they would only be liable to pay the normal license fee as per the policy. It goes without saying that market rate of license fee would be recoverable in respect of the premises in question after 01.06.1992. However, the same would have to be paid by the Tribunal to the respondents 1 & 2. The Tribunal, in turn, can only recover normal license fee from such officers for the period beyond 01.06.1992 till the date they were on deputation.
8. I now have to examine the impugned letters dated 13.08.1993 and 09.09.1993 and the letter dated 13.08.1993 which has been issued by the Ministry of Water Resources by which it is informed that market rate of license fee be recovered/charged w.e.f. 02.06.1992 from such officers who were on deputation to the Tribunal and who were in occupation of Government accommodation beyond 02.06.1992. The other letter, i.e., 09.09.1993 is to the same effect. It becomes immediately apparent that these letters cannot be sustained in view of the discussions above. While the respondents 1 & 2 and particularly Directorate of Estates would be entitled to recover market rate of license fee from the said Tribunal. Only normal license fee can be recovered, in turn, by the Tribunal from the petitioners.
9. In this view of the matter, the letters dated 13.08.1993 and 09.09.1993 to the extent indicated above are quashed. It is open to the respondents 1 & 2 to recover the market rate of license fee in respect of the premises in question from the said Tribunal w.e.f. 02.06.1992 till the date on which the petitioners respectively ended their period of deputation with the said Tribunal. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute.
dusty.