Surender Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

This OA has been filed by the present applicant against the order dated 31 12.2019 withholding an amount of Rs.8,22,627/- from his gratuity pursuant to his retirement on superannuation from service w.e.f. 30.12.2019.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as LDC on 20.4.1987 in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and posted at CISF Headquarters at New Delhi. He was promoted as UDC and Assistant in CISF in the years 1996 and 2003 respectively. Vide order dated 16.12.2009, the applicant was pre-maturely retired from service under Rule 56 (J) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He challenged the said order before Principal Bench, New Delhi of the Tribunal which, vide order dated 24.4.2010, dismissed his OA. The applicant challenged this order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, vide its order dated 10.09.2020, has set aside the order of premature retirement of the applicant and also the order of the CAT, Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The respondents have filed the SPL before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.7.2013. In pursuant of the High Court order, which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have issued order dated 21.8.2013 reinstating the applicant in service and posted him at CISF Headquarters, Saket in the office of IG, North Sector. The applicant retired from service on superannuation on 31.12.2019. While processing his retirement benefits, the Accounts Officer CISF, New Delhi issued PPO in respect of the applicant 30.12.2019. However, out of the total gratuity amount of Rs.11,82,578/- an amount of Rs.8,22,627/- was withheld by the respondents from the admissible gratuity. The above mentioned amount was withheld by the respondent because of the letter dated 9.8.2017 issued by the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development which mentions that the applicant over stayed in the allotted quarter from 23.4.2014 to 7.7.2017. The applicant represented to CISF Headquarters, vide letter dated 24.8.2017 regarding his entitlement to stay in the government quarters. However, the DG to CISF took a decision on 24.10.2017 that he had to pay the said amount as intimated by the Directorate of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development. He made a representation to Directorate of Estates, vide letter dated 18.6.2019 to waive off the damage charges /market rent raised by them. The respondent no.4 has not taken any decision on that representation as yet. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA before this Tribunal, seeking the following relief(s):

(i) To allow Original Application.

(ii.) To quash and set-aside the order dated 30.12.2019 & 13.11.2019 passed in respect of the applicant dealing with damages charges for Govt Accommodation for the period from 24.4.2014 to 7.7.2017 and withholding of an amount of Rs.822627/- out of the admissible amount of Gratuity withheld by PAO, CISF, New Delhi.

(iii.) To award interest 12% per annum on withheld amount of Gratuity.

iv.) To award cost of litigation.

v.) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.

On admission of the OA notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter affidavit to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder to the same.

The grounds undertaken by the applicant in his OA, which has been further substantiated by the counsel for applicant during his arguments, are as follows:-

(i) The applicant was Civilian employee in the CISF and he was posted in the CISF Headquarters. After the respondents lost the case regarding his premature retirement under 56(J) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the respondents CISF has posted him to CISF North Sector North Delhi where there was no post of Assistant (Civilian). When he reported to North Sector, Headquarters New Delhi, the Inspector General, North Sector informed to Respondent No.2, Director General CISF, New Delhi that no post of Assistant was authorized at North Sector, Headquarters New Delhi as there was no substantive post of Assistant (Civilian) in his office, i.e., the office of North Sectors Headquarters, New Delhi. The applicant was remained on substantive post of Assistant (Civilian) against the strength of CISF Headquarters New Delhi. In view of this, he was entitled to retain the General Pool Governement Accommodation on usual payment of License Fee. Hence, the recovery notice issued by the Director of Estates, Ministry of Urban Development vide order dated 09.8.2017 for recovery of damage charges for the period 23.4.2014 to 7.7.2017 was illegal.

(ii) The applicant continued to pay the license fee from September 2013 to June, 2017 regularly at Rs. 144/- per month . This amount was recovered from the monthly salary of the applicant by the respondent no.3. Hence, the respondents have accepted his occupation of General Pool Govt. accommodation provided by the Government as legitimate and they had recovered the legitimate dues for the said period in respect of the said accommodation.

(iii) As there was no substantive post at CISF,North Sector Headquarters New Delhi, his posting at such a place can be considered as a attachment duty. This is borne out by the CISF, North Sector, New Dehli vide letter dated 27.4.2013 that there was no authorized post of Assistant (Civilian) in his Office.

(iv). The applicant even made representation through Inspector General( Admn) in the office of DG CISF that the period of applicant at CISF North Sector at New Delhi should be treated as attachment as CISF North Sector, however, the said representation was rejected by the DG CISF vide order dated 13.11.2019

The counsel for the respondents have relied upon the counter affidavit filed by them. The applicant was posted to CISF North Sector, New Delhi on 30.8.2013. As the applicant was posted out of CISF Headquarters, he was not entitled to GPRA government accommodation. Accordingly, he was supposed to vacate the Govt. accommodation after the due date by availing the period allowed to retain the house for four to six months as per rules. In view of this , his occupation to retain the GPRA accommodation from 23.4.2014 to 7.7.2017 was not regular or authorized. He was supposed to vacate this accommodation immediately after the stipulated period of four or six months as allowed to transferred employees. This has been admitted by the applicant vide his application 6.6.2017 (Annexure R-2) addressed to the Deputy Director of Estates(Establishment). He had stated that he failed to apply for regularization of GPRA accommodation due to personal reasons and he requested to the Director of Estates for regularization of the said accommodation. The counsel for the respondents cited the SR-317 B 22 of the allotment of government residences (General Pool in Delhi ) Rules, 1963 wherein it has been mentioned that "where, after an allotment has been cancelled or is deemed to have been cancelled under any provision contained in these rules, the residence remains or has remained in occupation of the officer to whom it was allotted or of any person claiming through, such officer shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the residence, services, furniture and garden charges as may be determined by government from time to time”.

The counsel for the respondents further averred that the applicant was informed about the decision of the Director of Estates and at the time of retirement the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Director of the Estates have not given No Due Certificate (NDC) to the applicant stating that an amount of Rs. Rs.8,22,627 shall be recovered and is payable to the Director of Estates by the applicant. As the applicant failed to vacate the allotted quarters after the expiry of the stipulated period, he was liable to pay the damage /rent as mentioned by the Director of Estates vide their letter dated 09.08.2017.

I have gone through the records thoroughly and heard the arguments carefully. The main ground taken by the applicant seeking the aforementioned relief is that he was posted to a non-substantive post as Assistant ( Civilian) in the office of CISF, North Sector, New Delhi and this may be treated as his attachment rather than substantive post at CISF Headquarters and hence he was entitled for retaining the GPRA accommodation. The issue whether his posting was substantive or whether he was posted to a non-substantive post is not the subject matter of the present OA. If the applicant was aggrieved by such posting, he should have challenged such posting before the appropriate authorities. The applicant choose not to challenge his posting to the CISF, North Sector, New Delhi which did not entitle him to Government accommodation from GPRA pool. The applicant has admitted that the period from 23.4.2014 to 7.7.2017 was unauthorized and he requested vide his letter dated 6.6.2017 to Director of Estates for regularization of the same. The averment by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent no.3 was deducting Rs.144 per month from the monthly salary of the applicant as licence fee for the occupation of the house will not regularize unauthorized occupation of government accommodation. Moreover, the respondent no.3 is not the competent authorities to regularize such occupation. It was respondent no.4 i.e. Director of Estates who is supposed to take a call regarding regularization of un-authorization of occupation of government accommodation by any Government servant on recommendation of the Competent Authority in the parent cadre of the applicant. But in the instant case, the CISF Authorities did not make any such recommendation to regularize the occupation of Govt. accommodation by the applicant. Moreover, the applicant has not challenged the order dated 09.08.2017 issued by the Director of Estates-respondent no.4. In view of this, the OA lacks merit and hence it is dismissed.

All pending MAs are also disposed of accordingly.