Hc Gd Ravi Shankar Pandey And Others vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4428 Del

Delhi High Court

Hc Gd Ravi Shankar Pandey And Others vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                  $~102
                  *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +         W.P.(C) 9353/2020 & CM APPL. 30136/2020
                            HC GD RAVI SHANKAR PANDEY AND ORS ...Petitioners
                                          Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.

                                               versus

                            UNION OF INDIA                          .....Respondent
                                          Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
                                          CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar, Mr.
                                          Abhinav Bhardwaj, Mr. Amit Rana and Mr.
                                          Himanshu Kaushik, Advocates

                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                               JUDGMENT (ORAL)

                  %                              28.04.2025

                  C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent to recover, from them, demurrage/penal rent for the period during which they overstayed in the SPG1 quota accommodation allotted to them in New Delhi.

2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that, during the period the petitioners overstayed in the SPG accommodation allotted to them, they had been posted in areas suffering from Left Wing Extremist2 unrest and violence.

1 Special Protection Group 2 "LWE"

3. The issue in controversy stands covered by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this in Prem Singh Rawat v UOI3, in which, in identical circumstances, this Court held that no damages/penal rent could be recovered from paramilitary forces personnel for overstayal in SPG accommodation during the period they were deployed to LWE affected areas.

4. We have perused the judgment in Prem Singh Rawat and find that Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh is right. We are also entirely in agreement with the enunciation of law in Prem Singh Rawat.

5. The issue in controversy being brief, a limitation allusion of facts would suffice.

6. Petitioner 1 Ravi Shankar Pandey was transferred from the 123 Bn. of the Central Reserve Police Force4 to the SDG of the CRPF, situated at New Delhi, in 2009. On 27 May 2011, he was allotted an SPG quota quarter at Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. On 22 August 2016, he was transferred from the SDG to the 176 Bn situated at Baramulla, Jammu & Kashmir, which is admittedly a terrorist affected area, on the Indo-Pak border.

7. The maximum period for Petitioner 1 could retain the SPG quota quarter allotted to him expired on 31 March 2017. However, owing to his being posted in a terrorist affected area and in view of the

3 2010 SCC OnLine Del 816 4 "CRPF"

fact that the education of his wards was continuing, Petitioner 1 vacated the quarter only on 14 September 2017.

8. On 27 May 2019, the respondent, by a signal, sought to recover demurrage/arrears of penal rent from Petitioner 1, for the period of 144 days delay in vacating the SPG quota accommodation at New Delhi of ₹ 49,720/-

9. Petitioner 2 Ajay Kumar was transferred from the 72 Bn of the CRPF to the SDG at New Delhi in 2009. He was allotted an SPG quota quarter at Pushp Vihar, New Delhi on 31 January 2011. On 18 November 2015, he was transferred to the 85 Bn situated at Nimed, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, which is admittedly an LWE affected area. The period for which he could retain the SPG quarter allotted to him expired on 17 July 2016. During this period, he was selected as Assistant Commandant, following a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, on 20 May 2016. On 8 August 2016, he was sent for basic training, following his selection as Assistant Commandant, to Mount Abu, Rajasthan. He remained in training till 21 February 2017. Thereafter, he was posted at Latehar, Jharkhand, which was also an LWE affected area. On 11 September 2016, he applied for extension of time to vacate the Pushp Vihar quarter allotted to him, as his training was to be completed in January 2017. Finally, on 17 May 2017, Petitioner 2 vacated the Pushp Vihar quarter after a delay of 294 days. He attributes the delay to the education of his wards, the fact that he was posted for training at Mount Abu and was otherwise posted in an LWE affected area in Chhattisgarh.

10. On 27 May 2019, the respondent, by a Signal, sought to recover demurrage/penal rent from Petitioner 2, for the 294 days overstayal in the Pushp Vihar quarter, of ₹ 1,25,932/-. Petitioner 2 addressed a representation to the Commandant, SPG, on 15 July 2019, praying for exemption from the requirement of paying licence fee/demurrage charges for the period of overstayal in the Pushp Vihar quarter. The said representation was rejected on 28 August 2019.

11. Petitioner 3 Kuldeep Singh reported to the SDG, New Delhi in 2012. On 13 April 2012, he was allotted an SPG quota quarter at Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. On 12 December 2016, he was transferred from the SDG to the 150 Bn situated at Sukma, Chhattisgarh, which is admittedly an LWE affected area. He applied for extension of time to vacate the Pushp Vihar quarter, which was rejected. He ultimately vacated the quarter on 2 April 2018, after a delay of 232 days. He submits that the delay was occasioned because of the fact that he was posted in an LWE affected area and his children's education was underway.

12. By signal dated 27 May 2019, the respondent proposed to recover demurrage/arrears of penal rent from Petitioner 3 of ₹ 1,00,305/-. He represented to the Commandant for exemption therefrom, on 6 April 2020.

13. It in these circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.

14. The writ petition seeks quashing of the orders dated 27 may

2019, issued by the respondent, whereby demurrage rent was being sought to be recovered from the petitioners for the period of overstayal in SPG quota accommodation at Pushp Vihar, New Delhi.

15. The petitioners rely in the writ petition, on circular dated 14 July 2010 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs5, Government of India, which may be reproduced thus:

"No. 27012/4212009-PF.III Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya

North Block, New Delhi-110001 Dated 14th July, 2010 To

The Directors General BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, NSG & AR (through LO, AR) New Delhi.

Sub: Extension of the facility of retention of Government accommodation at the last place of posting for Central Paramilitary Force (CPF) personnel deployed in LWE affected areas.

Sir, I am directed to convey sanction of the Government for extension of the facility of retention of Government accommodation at the last place of posting for Central Paramilitary Force personnel (BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, SSB, AR & NSG) deployed/posted in Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected areas/districts (except State Capitals), as notified by the Government of India from time to time, on payment of flat rate/normal licence fee. The CPF personnel transferred from North-Eastern Region and J&K to the above mentioned LWE affected areas/districts will also be allowed to retain the accommodation already retained by them. It is clarified in this regard that if they were to surrender their accommodation and move their family to another private accommodation, no HRA will be admissible on this account.

5 "MHA" hereinafter

2. LWE affected districts/areas for this purpose will be the districts (except State Capitals) as identified/notified for implementation of Security Related Expenditure (SRE) scheme by Naxal Management Division of this Ministry from time to time.

3. This order will be applicable to all personnel of CPFs posted and physically working in the districts as at para 2 above, and occupying Government accommodation.

4. As and when CPF personnel are posted out of LWE affected areas, they will be required to vacate the accommodation retained by them within two months. While ensuring that the Government accommodation is vacated within the stipulated time, the Directors General of the concerned CPFs would endorse a copy of the posting order of CPF personnel out of the LWE affected areas in respect of General Pool accommodation, to Ministry of Urban Development and Ministry of Home Affairs in all cases.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(H Kam Suanthang) Under Secretary to the Government of India"

(Emphasis supplied)

The petitioners' contention in the writ petition, is that, by virtue of the aforesaid circular, they were entitled to retain the SPG quota accommodation allotted to them during the period they were posted in the LWE affected areas and that, therefore, no demurrage/penal rent could be charged from them for the said period.

16. At the time of issuing notice in the present writ petition on 24 November 2020, this Court granted interim protection to the petitioners, restraining the respondent from effecting any recovery from their emoluments. That interim order continues to operate.

17. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for the

respondent.

18. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh places reliance on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Prem Singh Rawat. He submits that the case is fully covered by the said decision. Additionally, he relies on the MHA circular dated 14 July 2010 reproduced supra. He submits that, by virtue of the decision in Prem Singh Rawat and the MHA circular dated 14 July 2010, there could be no recovery from the petitioners during the period of their overstayal in the SPG quota accommodation at Pushp Vihar, as they were all posted in Jammu and Kashmir, or in LWE affected areas during that period.

19. Mr. Bhardwaj submits, per contra, that the MHA circular dated 14 July 2010 applied to overstayal in normal government accommodation and would not apply to overstayal in SPG quota accommodation.

Analysis

20. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Bhardwaj, learned CGSC for the Union of India. The first submission of Mr. Bhardwaj was that this Court in its decision in Prem Singh Rawat (supra), has specifically noted in para 7, that the petitioners in that case had no right to retain the accommodation in question. Mr. Bhardwaj's second submission is predicated on the opening words of para 8 of the decision in Prem Singh Rawat in which the Court has observed that it was not intending to lay down a precedent and that the judgment was being rendered in the facts of that case.

21. We are unable to sustain either contention as a ground for us to depart from the approach adopted by this Court in Prem Singh Rawat. It is fundamental to administration of justice that persons identically situated should not be given differential treatment by Courts. Else, there would be complete erosion of public faith in the judicial ecosystem. There is no difference between the case of the present petitions and the case of the petitioners in Prem Singh Rawat. Even while recognizing that the petitioners before this Court in Prem Singh Rawat may not have had an enforceable right to continue in the SPG accommodation of which they were in occupation, the Court has adopted an expansive approach and has injuncted the respondents from recovering penal license fee from the petitioners keeping in mind the fact that they were stationed in LWE affected areas, who were protecting the country at their personal cost. The approach is laudable and commends acceptance.

22. The mere fact that the Court mentioned that it was not desiring to lay down a precedent, obviously meant that the judgment was not to be taken as an absolute authority to entitle persons to overstay in Government accommodation, without paying damage charges. It could not be read as an impediment on the Court adopting the same approach where identically situated petitioners came before it.

23. As such, following the decision in Prem Singh Rawat, we are of the opinion that the present petitioners would also be entitled to exemption from the requirement of paying penal license fee for the period during which they were posted in Jammu and Kashmir, and in LWE affected areas.

24. We make it clear, however, that the benefit of the judgment in Prem Singh Rawat would be available to the petitioners only till the period they continue to remain posted in Jammu and Kashmir or in the LWE affected areas. Thereafter, the petitioners would be liable to pay charges treating them as overstaying in the SPG accommodation till the time they vacated the accommodation.

25. As such, the impugned order of recovery from the petitioners would stand modified only to the extent that they would not be liable to pay penal license fee for the period they continue to remain posted in Jammu and Kashmir or in the LWE affected areas. For the period thereafter, however, we do not interfere with the impugned order.

26. We clarify that for the period during which the petitioners were posted in Jammu and Kashmir and LWE affected areas, they would be liable to pay license fee as applicable to General Pool Accommodation.

27. The writ petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid extent, with no orders as to costs.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

APRIL 28, 2025 yg/dsn

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

KUMAR Signing Date:19.05.2025 11:06:03