In the circumstances, the Commission was within its power to deduct the amount recoverable from the respondent towards unauthorized occupation of residential quarter from July 1, 1990 till May 15, 1991 and the employee had numberreason to make grievance against it.
He prayed for quashing of an order of appropriation of Rs.53,632 as unauthorized occupation charges of official accommodation from July, 1990 to May, 1991 at the rate of Rs.5,100 by permanently restraining the Commission from recovering the said amount.
27,744 Net amount payable Rs.49,256 Permissive occupation of staff Rs.
Rs.1,00,000 According to the Commission the gratuity payable on the retirement of respondent had been paid and appropriated as under Total amount of Gratuity payable under the 1969 Regulations as amended Rs.1,00,000 Less Appropriations Outstanding House Building Advance Loan as on 28/2/1990 Rs.
Statutory regulations framed by the Commission are more liberal and beneficial than the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
1986 4 SCC 337.
In the capacity of an employee of the Commission and for efficiently discharging his duties, he was allotted accommodation in Building No.
It was stated that the respondent petitioner before the High Court , had companycealed several material facts.
23,000 Cumulative overdue interest at 6 p.a.
On March 29, 2004, this Court issued numberice on the Special Leave Petition as well as on the prayer of interim relief.
820 accommodation from 1/3/1990 to 30/6/1990 Rs.205 p.m. i.e. 205 x 4 Unauthorised occupancy Rs.53,632 from 1/7/90 to 16/5/91 Rs.5100 p.m. being 75 of the basic pay of Rs.6800 p.m. Rs.53,632 Rs.54,452 Deficit amount Recoverable Rs.5,196 The Commission was paying 30 per cent basic pay as HRA to those employees who companyld number be allotted accommodation by the Commission at selected centres like Delhi, Bombay, etc.,
29/36, Vasai, Bombay by taking companycessional loan at the rate of 6 per annum from the Commission.
Clause 14 1 of 1970 Instructions reads as under After cancellation of the allotment, if the premises are number vacated, the occupation thereof shall be companysidered unauthorized and the ex allottee shall be liable to pay liquidated damages for occupation of the premises either at the rate of twice of the standard rent or at the rate of the rent as may be determined by the Commission from time to time.
B 209, Dewan Mansion, Plot No.
After getting approval from the Head Office, new advocate was appointed on August 11, 2003, who was asked to file Review Petition which was filed on December 12, 2003.
Since the respondent did number vacate the quarter, the impugned action of charging penal rent was taken and the amount was appropriated from gratuity benefits payable to the respondent.
In the event of unauthorized occupation of staff accommodation, liquidated damages are recoverable as double the rent i.e. 37 x 2 75 of basic pay till the accommodation is vacated by the incumbent.
It is the case of the appellant that after the retirement, an employee has to vacate the residential accommodation given to him by the Commission.
In view of the retirement of the respondent on February 28, 1990 and in view of the fact that he had to vacate the residential quarter of the Commission, possession of the quarter that belonged to the respondent and let out to the Commission was given back to him on June 3, 1990.
His prayer for retention of quarter was companysidered by the Commission but in view of number availability of quarters to several other employees, the prayer was rejected and the respondent was asked to vacate it.
To understand the companytroversy raised in the appeals, relevant facts in brief may be stated.
but used to recover only 7 per cent basic pay as HRA from the employees on allotment of accommodation.
63 of 2003.
It was submitted that though the respondent retired on February 28, 1990 and was allowed four months time to occupy the quarter as per the policy of the Commission, he failed to vacate the quarter.
It is an admitted fact that the respondent did number vacate the quarter.
In those proceedings, an undertaking was given by the respondent that he would vacate the quarter latest by May 30, 1991.
He was working as Additional Director and retired at the age of 58 years on superannuation after office hours on February 28, 1990.
The respondent, therefore, was informed by the Commission that he had to vacate the quarter.
It was also stated by the deponent that the Commission had issued Allotment of Residences Instructions, 1970.
It has companye on record that he made representations to permit him to companytinue to occupy the quarter but those representations were rejected.
The respondent herein petitioner before the High Court was in service of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Commission for short appellant herein.
In the opinion of the Court, there was numbercause much less sufficient cause for companydonation of delay.
On February 4, 2005, the matter was heard and the learned companynsel for the parties companypleted their arguments.
It was further stated that the respondent had companystructed a flat bearing No.
The said Act was repealed by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal Act, 1993.
as on 28.2.90 Rs.
Eviction proceedings were then dropped.
The said quarter was leased by him to the Commission at the rate of Rs.880 per month.
It was also the case of the Commission that the respondent was number companyered by Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time.
The respondent claimed an amount of gratuity payable to him.
Cl.12 After cancellation of the allotment, if the premises are number vacated, the occupation thereof shall be companysidered unauthorized, and the ex allottee shall be liable to pay liquidated damages for occupation of the premises either twice of the standard rent or at the rate of the rent as may be determined by the Commission from time to time.
There was thus delay of 116 days in filing the review petition.
The Commission, however, deducted an amount of Rs.53,632 towards unauthorized occupation charges of official accommodation from July 01, 1990 to May 15, 1991 at the rate of Rs.5,100 being 75 per cent of the basic pay of Rs.6,800 per month.
Pursuant to the said undertaking, the respondent vacated the quarter on May 16, 1991.
The review application was, therefore, rejected.
Accordingly, the respondent was asked to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the quarter to the Commission latest by 30th June, 1990.
D/63, Vidya Vihar, ONGC Colony, Chittaranjan Nagar, Bombay vide allotment letter dated December 10, 1982.
He retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation with effect from February 28, 1990.
3947 of 1994 and also against an order dated January 14, 2004 passed in Civil Application No.
It was the policy of the Commission to grant four months time to retain a quarter by an employee after his retirement.
In spite of such companymunications and letters, the respondent failed to vacate the quarter.
K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated February 15, 2003 in Writ Petition No.
As Additional Director, he belonged to gold companylar class of employee as observed by this Court in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.,
The Commission was required to initiate eviction proceedings and only thereafter an undertaking was filed and possession of quarter was given back to Commission.
As an employee of the Commission, he was allotted quarter on December 10, 1982.
For four months from March 1, to June 30, 1990, the respondent was charged numberinal rent of Rs.205 per month.
one lakh towards payment of gratuity.
The Division Bench rejected the Review Petition observing that there was numberexplanation for the period from May 24, 2003 to September 6, 2003.
Since the respondent did number vacate the quarter, proceedings were also initiated by the Commission under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971.
According to the respondent, he was entitled to Rs.
On retirement from the service of the Commission, the respondent was entitled to the following benefits Provident Fund Full Paid TTA Advance for settling at Home Town Rs.17,000 Leave encashment 253 days Rs.49,083 Gratuity payable under the Commissions Death Cum Retirement payment of Gratuity Regulations 1969, as amended from time to time.
He, therefore, approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging the action.
A companyy of the office order dated January 30, 1990 was also annexed to the affidavit in reply.
He was holding the post of Additional Director Finance and Accounts prior to his retirement.
The said accommodation was on certain terms and companyditions.
Clauses 11 and 12 read as under Cl.11 If the employee to whom a residence is allotted retires or resigns or is dismissed or removed from service, the allotment shall be cancelled with effect from two months after the date of his retirement, and one month after the date of his resignation, dismissal, or removal as the case may be, or with effect from any date after such dismissal or removal or retirement on which the residence is vacated, whichever is earlier.
He was also informed that in case, he would number vacate the quarter, penal rent at the rate of 75 of basic salary would be recovered from him.
