Anoop Chand, K. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he was allotted Type-IV Quarters at M.G. Colony as per the copy of the Memorandum dated 02.12.2021 after being promoted as Chief Publicity Inspector on 27.06.2018 and posted in Bangalore Division. Pursuant to the notification dated 25.05.2022 for formation of panel for promotion to Group B post of Public Relation Officer (PRO), the written examination was held on 22.03.2024. The applicant was selected for the post of PRO from the ‘Best Amongst failed candidates’ after conducting viva-voce and medical examination. The applicant was promoted as Public Relation Officer on adhoc/trial basis and posted to Hubli Division. He sought for permission to retain the quarters allotted to him in Bangalore vide application dated 05.07.2024, which was accepted by the Respondent No.2 permitting the applicant to retain the quarters allotted to him from 25.06.2024 to 24.08.2024 on payment of normal rent on transfer account and from 25.08.2024 to 24.12.2024 on payment of double the normal rent. The applicant submitted another letter dated 03.01.2025 prayed for permission to retain the quarters up to 25.02.2025 and extension was granted accordingly. However, the Respondent No.3 issued a note dated 20.02.2025 conveying the orders of Respondent No.1 to the effect that the candidature of the applicant for regularization of promotion was not recommended and action be taken to revert the applicant to the original post in Group ‘C’. Accordingly, office order dated 13.03.2025 was issued reverting the applicant with a direction to report to Bangalore Division. Subsequent to which, the applicant reported to duty to Bangalore Division on 28.03.2025. On 02.04.2025, the Respondent No.2 sent a letter to the applicant levying damage rent and advising to vacate the quarters to avoid further damage rent. Immediately the applicant submitted a letter requesting permission to retain the Type IV quarters in view of the applicant posted at Bangalore Division upon reversion, but the Respondent No.2 continued to issue letters dated 25.03.2025 and 30.06.2025 charging damage rent. Further representations were made by the applicant for retention of quarters. In the meantime, Respondent No.2 vide Memorandum dated 01.07.2025 allotted Type III quarters with a direction that the applicant may vacate the Type IV quarters already allotted to him though he was entitled to Type IV quarters. However, the respondents started levying damage rent of Rs.50,000/-per month from August, 2025. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

Learned Counsel Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that on reversion and posting of the applicant to Bangalore from the post of PRO, Hubli, he was entitled for retention of quarters in his possession as he was permitted to retain the quarters allotted to him upon his adhoc promotion and transfer to Hubli. Instead of permitting retention of Type IV quarters allotted to the applicant, Type III quarters was allotted on 01.07.2025 and simultaneously commenced charging damage rent for his Type IV quarters. Without taking any decision on the representation submitted by the applicant, the respondents have allotted Type III quarters on 01.07.2025. The respondents have later allotted Type III quarters, which was allotted to the applicant on 01.07.2025 to one Shri Santhu Das, Junior Engineer as per Memorandum dated 20.11.2025 and the said official occupied the said quarters on 26.11.2025. After his reversion from promoted post and posting to original place at Bangalore, the respondents ought to have permitted the applicant to retain the quarters allotted to him, not doing so and charging damage rent, has caused substantial prejudice to the applicant.

Learned Counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing the respondents submitted that on the request made by the applicant himself for extension of retention of quarters in question from 25.12.2024 to 24.02.2025 vide representation dated 03.01.2025 (Annexure A5), the respondents permitted such retention vide Memorandum dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure R3), where it was stipulated that the retention was permitted only up to 24.02.2025 on payment of prescribed rent and further categorically provided that continuation of occupation beyond the permissible period would be treated as unauthorised occupation attracting damage rent and eviction proceedings as per rules. Having accepted the benefit of extended retention under Annexure R3, the applicant is estopped from challenging the consequential liability arising from very same order. The claim of the applicant before this Tribunal seeking stoppage of damage rent is therefore wholly misconceived, contrary to the explicit terms and conditions (Annexure R3). Subsequently, the applicant was allotted Type-III quarters and requested to vacate the Type IV quarters, which was allotted to Shri Surendra Bhadu, AAO/SBC on 24.04.2025. Further the applicant failed to vacate the quarters, hence the respondents started recovering damage rent from the month of May, 2025 from his salary. Since the applicant has not vacated Type-IV quarters, respondents have allotted another quarter No.361/A Type IV M.G. Railway Colony on 21.7.2025 to AAO-Shri Surendra Bhadu. The applicant has no right to continue to be in occupation of the said quarter No.361/A Type IV as it belongs to gazetted pool. Thus, justifying the recovery of damage rent, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.

We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

Indeed, immediately after the promotion to the post of PRO, Hubli, though on adhoc basis, on his request, permission was granted to retain the Type-IV quarter at Bangalore which was in his occupation vide Memorandum dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure R3) on payment of double the normal rent on transfer account from 25.08.2024 to 24.02.2025. The said Memorandum (Annexure R3) specifically and unequivocally stipulates that retention was permitted up to 24.02.2025 on payment of double the rent from 25.08.2024 to 24.02.2025 and further categorically provides continuation of occupation beyond the permissible period would be treated as unauthorised occupation attracting damage rent and eviction proceedings as per Rules. The applicant had no grouse against the same under the bonafide hope that he may be regularised in the post of PRO, Hubli. But the actual problem started only after his reversion and posting to the original place.

The applicant’s promotion was only on adhoc basis in terms of office order dated 18.06.2024 and it was only for six months. The promotion was provisional and his performance was to be reviewed after six months. On review of his performance, unfortunately the applicant has been reverted and posted back to Bangalore Division vide order dated 13.03.2025. It is not in dispute that upon his reversion the applicant has reported to Bangalore Division and is working as Chief Publicity Inspector in Bangalore vide posting order dated 20.03.2025. Subsequently, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 25.04.2025 for permission to retain the quarters in his occupation. That being so, allotting Type III quarters to the applicant that too on out of turn basis is not fair and reasonable. Indisputedly, the employees drawing the Grade Pay of more than Rs.2400/- are entitled for allotment of Type IV quarters and the applicant was drawing Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- (Level-7) in VII CPC and he was entitled for Type IV quarters. As long as the applicant is in occupation of entitled type of quarter, in the absence of any response to his further representation/s, continuation of the applicant in the occupied quarters, being reverted and posted to original place at Bangalore from his adhoc post of PRO, Hubli, cannot be said to be in illegal or unauthorised occupation. Applicant’s transfer to Hubli was temporary, only on adhoc/trial basis for a period of six months subject to review of his performance. If he is not regularised in the said adhoc post and reverted back to the original post, his occupied quarter ought to have been continued sans imposing any damage rent subsequent to his transfer to the original place. Accordingly, we pass the following: