By an order dated 9.8.1984, the High Court took the view that it was open to the appellant to approach the department companycerned inasmuch as the damages have been reduced to Rs.
In May 1979, appellant was transferred out of Delhi.
176 per month.
So, he had to pay damages for use and occupation of the accommodation equal to the market licence fee as might be determined by the Government from time to time.
There was numberresponse.
Against this order of levy of damages, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge.
That, however, came to be reduced to Rs.
399 of 1987.
88 per month.
During the period of his unauthorised occupation, proceeding under Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the Estate Officer levied damages against the appellant.
The Estate Officer by his order dated 12.3.1983 passed an order for damages.
While he was working in Delhi, he occupied a pooled Central Government accommodation.
176 per month by the District Judge in appeal.
Therefore, he was informed that he would be charged market rent w.e.f.
On these allegations, he moved an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administration Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.
He was re transferred to Delhi in 1983 and the allotment was regularised.
When he was transferred to Meerut in June, 1979, he ought to have vacated the premises within two months from the date of transfer, even this was number done.
The rules relating to charging of licence fee were amended in June 1976.
665 of 1984 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the recovery from him for the period 1.1.1976 to August 1979.
The licence fee was fixed at Rs.
However, he companytinued to retain the official residence numberwithstanding the fact that the allotment was cancelled from 1.7.1979.
Notwithstanding these two proceedings since the Directorate of Estate did number order the refund, the appellant wrote a letter dated 19.12.1984 requesting orders be passed in relation of refund.
25.7.1984, the damage came to be reduced from Rs.
1.1.1976.
By order Dt.
He was informed that his payment of gratuity companyld number be made till the receipt of No Demand Certificate from the Directorate of Estates.
That has number been cleared.
Without deciding the same and refusing to issue a No Demand Certificate if the appellants gratuity was withheld, the appellant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 18 per annum.
1070/ to Rs.
With effect from 1.9.1979 for his unauthorised occupation, he became liable to pay damages under the Allotment Rules for overstay.
176/ .
This Court in M. Padmanabhan Nairs case supra has held as under Tension and gratuity are numberlonger any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in settlement and disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rats till actual payment.
Mohan, J. Leave granted.
The facts in brief in this appeal are as under The appellant retired as Director General of Income Tax on 28.2.1986.
During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge under the Act, the appellant preferred Civil Writ Petition No.
The respondent companytested the same stating that the appellant ought to have vacated the Government accommodation allotted to him by 31.12.1975, that he did number do.
