Gopal Chandra Lohar vs Union Of India Through Secretary Under ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 4270 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gopal Chandra Lohar vs Union Of India Through Secretary Under ... on 12 May, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad

                                                      2026:JHHC:14542-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                 W.P. (S) No. 2530 of 2026
                             ----

Gopal Chandra Lohar, aged about 64 years, son of Late Gagan Chandra Lohar, resident of Gagan Niwas, Near Denobili School, Digwadih No.12, P.O. F.R.I., P.S. Jorapokhar, District Dhanbad, PIN-828110 (Jharkhand) ... ... Petitioner Versus

1.Union of India through Secretary under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. Mehrauli, Delhi, PIN-110016.

2. Director General of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.), Anusandhan Bhawan, 2 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Marg, New Delhi, P.O., P.S. and District Delhi, PIN- 110001.

3. Director of CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Barwa Road, P.O. and P.S. Barwa Road, District Dhanbad, PIN-826001.

4. Section Officer (State) of CSIR- Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Barwa Road, P.O. and P.S. Barwa Road, District Dhanbad, PIN-826001.

5. Administrative Officer of CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Barwa Road, P.O. and P.S. Barwa Road, District Dhanbad, PIN-826001. ... ... Respondents

-------

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Namashyu Kejriwal, Advocate Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate

--------

th Order No. 06 : Dated 12 May, 2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

1. At the outset, it has been pointed out that in order

dated 24th April, 2026, at paragraph 8, 12 and 16, it has been

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

typed as 'Director, SCIR-CIMFR' in place of 'Director, CSIR-

CIMFR'.

2. We have perused order dated 24th April, 2026 and found

that inadvertently, Director, CSIR-CIMFR', has been typed as

'Director, SCIR-CIMFR'. The same is corrected and it shall be

read as 'Director, CSIR-CIMFR'.

3. The remaining part of order dated 24th April, 2026 shall

remain in-tact.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated

16.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Patna Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00831/2025, by

which, the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the

quantum of assessment under the head of 'damage rent' in

lieu of the retention of the quarter by the petitioner, allegedly

occupied contrary to the authority from 31.12.2021 till the

vacation of the said quarter on 30.11.2023.

5. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading available

on record, is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of

Pump Mechanic in Grade Technical 2/I and retired from

service on 31.12.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation

while working on the post of Senior Technician Group-II.

6. During the relevant time, under the provisions of CSIR

(Residence Allotment) Rules, 1997, [hereinafter referred to as

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

'Rules, 1997'] a quarter was allotted in his favour. The

petitioner, in course of retention of the said quarter has

retired from service on 31.12.2021.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that after retirement, he

could not vacate the Company's quarter because the

construction work of the petitioner's house was going on.

8. Therefore, the respondent has come out with the

calculation by assessing the damage rent for retention of the

quarter by the petitioner.

9. Two calculations have been made as would be evident

from Annexure 3, which is dated 17.04.2023, which is on the

basis of applicability of the Rule, 1997 but in the meanwhile

since the Rules, 1997 was superseded and as such the

another calculation was made on the basis of the then Rule

namely, CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 2022 [hereinafter

referred to as 'Rules, 2022'], as contained in office memo

dated 22.04.2024 [Annexure 5 to the writ petition].

10. The petitioner being aggrieved with the calculation

available in the office memo dated 22.04.2024, has

approached to the learned tribunal but the tribunal having

refused to interfere with the same, the present writ petition

has been filed.

11. The matter was heard by this Court on 24th April, 2026.

This Court has considered the issue as to whether Rules,

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

1997 would be applicable or Rules, 2022. The said

consideration was made on the basis of the fact that the writ

petitioner has retired from service on 31.12.2021; and at that

time Rule 1997 was in-vogue. The Rules, 2022 came into

being w.e.f. 23rd February, 2023, as would be evident from

Annexure A series to the counter affidavit filed by the

respondent.

12. A question has been referred and discussed in order

dated 24th April, 2026 on the issue of applicability of Rules,

1997 or Rules, 2022. The aforesaid issue crept up due to the

reason that the calculation which has been made in

Annexure 3 was on the basis of Rules, 1997 but after coming

into effect of Rules, 2022, on repealment and supersession of

earlier Rules, 1997, the fresh calculation was made as per

office memo dated 22.04.2024, as available at Annexure 5.

13. This Court has passed order on 24th April, 2026 on

consideration of the issue of applicability of Rules. For ready

reference, order dated 24th April, 2026 passed by this Court

is referred herein:

"1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00831/2025 has been challenged.

2. The core of the issue is assessment of the calculation of the amount of damages in lieu of retention of quarter which was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner when he was in service and which is said to be unauthorized retention after his retirement from

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

service on 31.12.2021. 3. The basic issue as has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner that the damages have been casted upon the petitioner by virtue of communication dated 17.4.2023 (Annexure-3) casting liability of a sum of Rs. 1,06,403/- with a direction to pay back the aforesaid amount, failing which, disciplinary proceeding will be initiated under Rule 13 of the CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as Rule,2022).

4. The further grievance urged by the Petitioner is that the authority concerned has committed a serious departure by arbitrarily enhancing the assessed amount from Rs. 1,06,403/- to Rs. 16,11,1635/- which would be evident from Annexure 5 dated 22.04.2024.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and on 17.4.2026 has passed an order by taking note of the aforesaid submissions, for ready reference the order dated 17.4.2026 is being referred herein under:

"02/Dated: 17thApril, 2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. It has been submitted by referring to the content of the order passed by the Tribunal, i.e., the court of first instance, that the grievance which was agitated has been rejected by passing a cryptic order.

3. The prayer was made before the Tribunal by questioning the very basis of calculation of the amount for which the liability has been casted upon the writ petitioner.

4. It has been submitted by referring to Annexure 3 that the aforesaid annexure by way of second reminder, apprising the writ petitioner to the total amount of monetary liability to the tune of Rs. 1,06,403/- in lieu of the occupation of quarter without authority of law.

5. It has been submitted in Annexure 5, which was challenged before the Tribunal that a serious departure has been made by extending the amount from Rs. 1,06,403/- to Rs. 16,11,163/-.

6. We have considered the calculation of amount as has been arrived at in Annexure 3 dated 17.04.2023 that in case the writ petitioner would have vacated the quarter up to

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

31.03.2023, then the liability to make payment of the market rent would have been Rs. 1,06,403/Such calculation has been made by referring the general licence fee/penal licence fee.

7. This Court, when considered the Annexure 5 dated 22.04.2024, has found that the new calculation has been made making departure from the serial No. 4 onwards.

8. This Court prima facie is of the view that the Annexure 3 since is the creation of the respondent and has been issued by the Administrative Officer while the Annexure 5 which is the departure from the details of calculations carried out by the Administrative Officer, that too calculated by the Section Officer, which is lower in hierarchy in comparison to that of the Administrative Officer.

9. It is further evident that the Tribunal without calling upon the respondent has disposed of the application

10. This Court, in order to come to the conclusive finding, is of the view that the departure which has been made from Annexure 3 to Annexure 5 needs explanation by the authority at the highest level.

11. Let the Director, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, along with the Administrative Officer, the authority who has calculated Annexure-3 dated 17.04.2023 and the Section Officer; who has calculated Annexure 5 dated 22.04.2024, appear physically in this court, along with the entire record.

12. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the copy of the original application so as to see the nature of prayer which was made before the Tribunal.

13. List this case on 20th April, 2026."

6. This Court, in order to come to the conclusive finding, has directed in paragraph no.10 of the aforesaid order that as to why departure has been made from Annexure-3 to Annexure-5. The same is to be explained by the highest-level authority.

7. This Court, therefore, has directed the Director, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, along with the Administrative Officer, the authority who has calculated Annexure- 3 dated 17.4.2023 and the Section Officer; who has calculated

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

Annexure-5 dated 22.4.2024, for their physical appearance in this Court, along with the entire records.

8. In compliance of the order dated 17.4.2026, Mr. Prof. Arvind Kumar Mishra, Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Mr. Aditya Mainak (COA, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Mr. Kamal Kujur, A.O., CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Section Officer, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad and Mr. Keshri Kumar, Section Officer, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad are present in the Court.

9. In the meanwhile, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents.

10. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, has placed reliance upon the said affidavit and sought to justify the quantification of the amount undertaken, as reflected in Annexure-5. It has been submitted that such quantification is premised upon the Rule enacted on 23.02.2022, which has been annexed as Annexure-A series at page 45 of the counter-affidavit dated 18.04.2026.

11. From the record it is evident that the petitioner has superannuated from his service on attaining age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. The quarter in question had been allotted under the then prevailing CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as „Rule, 1997‟), prior to the coming into force of the subsequent Rule of 2022.

12. This Court, therefore, has put a query to the Director, SCIR- CIMFR, Dhanbad and also the learned counsel representing the respondents, as to whether the new Rule, 2022 can be made applicable to such employee who has already superannuated from service prior to coming into effect the said Rule, 2022.

13. In response, the argument has been advanced that the new Rule, 2022 since has come during the course of retention of quarter and, as such, the same would be applicable.

14. This Court has again put a query that what is the legal interpretation of the provision as contained in Clause 24.1 of Rules 2022which provides a provision to the effect that any valid allotment of residence under the provision of Allotment Rules in force immediately prior to commencement of these rules shall be deemed to be an allotment made under these rules notwithstanding the fact that the employee ceases to be entitled

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

with reference to clause 3.1 to the type of residence already allotted to him.

15. This Court has further posed a query as to whether the stipulation contained in Clause 24.1 would extend to a person who has already been separated from service upon attaining the age of superannuation because once the individual concerned has superannuated, he ceases to be regarded as an employee.

16. At this juncture, Mr. Abhay Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instruction of the Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, who is present in the Court, has submitted that he will revisit the calculation as per Rule, 1997.

17. At this juncture, upon considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondents, this Court deemed it appropriate to adjourn the matter, granting one week‟s time to the Respondents to come forth with a fresh calculation.

18. Accordingly, let this matter be listed on 01.05.2026.

19. The personal appearance of the Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad is hereby dispensed with, however, the Administrative Officer and Sections Officers shall remain present on the next date of hearing."

14. This Court while considering the issue by posed a

specific question, as would be evident from paragraph14 and

15 order dated 24th April, 2026, upon learned counsel for the

respondent, who on instruction of Director, CSIR-CIMFR,

Dhanbad, who was present in the Court, has stated that he

will revisit the calculation as per Rule, 1997.

15. Accordingly, time was granted to file affidavit in this

regard.

16. In consequence thereof, the affidavit has been filed,

wherein fresh calculation has been made on the basis of

Rules, 1997 coming down the amount, as assessed, to the

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

tune of Rs. 2,28,565/- [Two lakhs twenty eight thousand five

hundred and sixty five], as available at Annexure A to the

supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

17. The said calculation has been made casting liability

upon the writ petitioner to pay under the head of 'damage

rent'.

18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that fresh calculation since has been made on the

basis of Rules, 1997, hence, he has nothing to say but the

remaining amount as per calculation made, as available at

Annexure 5, i.e., [Rs.16,11,163-Rs.2,28,565 = Rs.13,82,598/-

] is to be paid by the respondent along with interest.

19. Though the issue of statutory interest has been objected

by learned counsel for the respondent-CSIR but such

objection is not tenable in the eye of law reason being that

once the issue of damage rent has been accepted by the

respondent-CIMFR, casting liability upon the writ petitioner

under the head of damage rent to the tune of Rs. 2,28,565/-,

the excess amount which has been retained by the CIMFR i.e.

Rs.13,82,598/-is liable to be paid in favour of petitioner along

with the statutory interest, reason being that the retention of

the excess amount from the petitioner upon which the

interest has been earned by the respondent and as such in

2026:JHHC:14542-DB

order to maintain balance whatever amount has been

retained is to be refunded along with statutory interest.

20. In view thereof, the respondent is directed to refund the

said amount along with the statutory interest within a period

of three weeks from the receipt/production of copy of this

order.

21. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

22. The impugned order 16.12.2025 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No.

051/00831/2025, is modified to the extent as indicated

hereinabove.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

24. Pending Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.) th 12 May, 2026 N.A.F.R. Alankar/-

- 10 -