S.N. Misra vs Commander Officer, Air Force St. ...
1990 Latest Caselaw 488 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The petitioner, who is a serving officer in the Indian Air Force, was transferred from New Delhi to Bhuj in Gujarat on 28th March, 1988. Prior to his transfer, he had been allotted married accommodation at Rajokri Air Force Station, Delhi. The petitioner's family did not vacate the said premises till April, 1989 and the respondents are charging market rent from the petitioner with effect from 7th November, 1988.

(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that at Bhuj married accommodation was not available to the petitioner and non-availability certificate was furnished and therefore the petitioner had a right to retain the premises at Delhi and he could not be charged market rent. It is further averred that the petitioner was declared as an unauthorised occupant only vide letter dated 17th February, 1989 and therefore he can charged market rent only with effect from that date. In support of his contention that he could retain the premises after transfer, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a decision of the Air Force authorities contained in the letter dated 4th June, 1984.

(3) Counsel for -the respondents has brought to our notice another decision of the Air Force authorities contained in the letter dated ) 3th August, 1985 which, inter alia, provides for alternative accommodation being granted to an officer who has been transferred, in lieu of the accommodation which he was occupying prior to his transfer. It is further the case of the respondents that the petitioner was offered temporary married accommodation at Delhi but the petitioner chose not to accept the same.

(4) In our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Firstly, the petitioner ought to have place on record the decision of the respondents contained in their letter dated 13th August, 1985 in which it is clearly stated that an officer can be permitted to retain accommodation at the station from which he has been transferred on his producing non-availability certificate from the new station. It is further stated that an officer retaining such an accommodation is liable to be shifted to an alternate accommodation appropriate to his case. In the instant case, the petitioner was required to shift to alternate accommodation, namely temporary married accommodation because there was acute shortage of married accommodation at Delhi. It was indeed surprising that in a disciplined force, like the Air Force, the petitioner chose not to abide by the letters written to him and did not occupy the temporary married accommodation which had been allotted to him after his transfer from Delhi. The petitioner chose not to shift from the married accommodation despite his having been asked a number of times. In the letter dated 4th June 1984, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner, it is clearly stated that on transfer, an officer can retain family accommodation at his previous station only for a period of ten days.

(5) It is further stated in letter of 4th June, 1984 that because of nonavailability of accommodation at the new station, it becomes necessary for an officer to retain accommodation at the station from where he has been transferred. This accommodation is sought to be retained usually on academic grounds, for the benefit of the family. It was stated in the letter dated 4th June, 1984 that the officers will be allowed a period of sixty days to exercise their option to indicate the grounds sought for retention of accommodation at their lost duty station if they are otherwise entitled to it. This clearly shows that the maximum period of retention of accommodation can only be sixty days and further more this extension has to be granted on an application being made for such retention. Making of the application was necessarily meant for indicating the grounds for retention of accommodation and in the present case the petitioner admittedly did not make any such application for permission to retain the accommodation on any of the grounds stated in the letter dated 4th June, 1984.

(6) As no such letter was written by the petitioner, seeking retention of the accommodation beyond a period of ten days, and up to a maximum period of sixty days, the respondents rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner's occupation of the permises was unauthorised. The respondents have been considerate enough to regard the occupation of the petitioner as unauthorised after sixty days though they may have been justified in regarding the occupation of the petitioner after ten days as unauthorised because no application as envisaged by the letter dated 4th June, 1984 had been made.

(7) In our opinion, there is no merit in this writ petition. The petitioner was obliged to vacate the married accommodation which he failed to do so and by operation of the policy decision on his occupation became unauthorised and he was liable to pay market rent. The petitioner was warned time and again by the respondents that market rent would be charged from the petitioner but the petitioner did not vacate the premises till April 1989.

(8) We see no .ground for interference in this case specially when we are satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the respondents. Petition is accordingly dismissed.