S.J.S. Chhatwal vs Union Of India & Another
2000 Latest Caselaw 1227 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Rule.

2. This Petition has been filed by the petitioner against cancellation of his allotment of the Government accommodation and charging damage rate of rent for a period of overstay from 1.11.1996 to 4.12.1996 amounting to Rs. 17,350/- at the rate of Rs. 15,336/- per month, after the petitioner became Chairman of the UPSC and on completion of his tenure of five years.

3. It has been contended by Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Government's own policy, which is reflected in the letter dated 12.2.1992 (Annexure P-2 at page 17 of the paper-book), the petitioner being a former IFS Officer, who later joined UPSC as Member had not availed the benefit of full retention of any Government accommodation on Superannuation from Government and, therefore, like a regular Government officer on his demitting the office of acting Chairman of the UPSC he ought to have been allowed four months stay on retirement. He has further contended that Regulation 16 safeguards the rights, allowances in respect of leave of officers or pension and to those to which he would have been entitled, even if the regulation was no make. He has further contended that in the alternative even if there is no regulation with regard to the condition of service of Chairman and the Members, the same shall be determined by the rules and orders applicable to the Central Government servants of equivalent grades. He laid emphasis on Regulation 15 of the UPSC Regulations in this regard. Mr. Tulsi has contended that the petitioner was Grade-I officer of the IFS service. He was posted as Indian Ambassador to Canada at Ottawa and, therefore, paragraph 4 of the letter dated 12.2.1992 written by Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development specifying the eligibility of the Chairman and the Members of the UPSC regarding the accommodation would be applicable in his case.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, leaned counsel for the respondents has contended that paragraph 3 of the letter dated 12.2.1992 will be applicable to the case of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was only entitled to retain the accommodation for a period of one month on payment of normal license fee after demitting the office and the petitioner could have continued for another six months on payments of double the normal license fee under SR 317-B-22. He has further contended that paragraph 4 of the letter in question is applicable only to those Government officers who at the time of their joining as Chairman or Members of the UPC were in accommodation of the General Pool at New Delhi.

5. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. There is an obvious fallacy in the stand of the respondent. Paragraph 3 of letter dated 12.2.1992 deals with cases of Members of the UPSC who were appointed for a fixed period but they not be the Government servant earlier. However, paragraph 4 deals particularly with Government servants who joined UPSC as Members and have not already availed of the benefit of full retention of accommodation on superannuation from Government. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a government servant. It is also not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner did not ever-stay at the accommodation available to him at Ottawa or he had any general pool accommodation at New Delhi and have not availed benefit of full retention of four months which he was entitled in terms of the policy of the respondent as per their letter date 12.2.1992, then the insertion of paragraph 4 in that letter would become redundant if the benefit is not given to Government servants who joined UPSC as Member and has not availed of the benefit of full retention of Superannuation from Government. Paragraph 4 of the said DO letter only deals with the service condition that if a Member of the UPSC who joined as such happened to be a Government servant and not availed the benefit of full retention of superannuation in a government accommodation, then he will be entitled to occupy a Government accommodation, even after he becomes a Member of UPSC like a regular Government officer. In this case of argument of the respondents that the petitioner was having a house at New Delhi will also not come in the way of relaxation granted to the Government officer as a matter of policy in terms of the aforesaid DO letter. In any event of the matter, the petitioner overstayed for one month and four days. The period of over-stay is covered under paragraph 4 of the aforesaid letter. Respondents are not entitled to charge any damage rent from the petitioner.

6. I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-5 and P-7). Rules is made absolute.

7. Petition stands disposed of.