Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
C. Ramachandran vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 276 OF 2012
w i t h
O.A. NO. 277 OF 2012
Thursday, this the 12th day of April, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
O.A. 276/2012
C. Ramachandran, S/o. Late M. Chinniaian,
Superintending Engineer, Director (Planning),
Headquarters Chief Engineer (Naval Works),
Kochi, Military Engineer Services,
Kataribagh, Kochi - 4.
Residing at Quarter No. 405 KB,
Naval Base, Kochi. - Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. R. Sreeraj )
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi - 4.
3. The Chief Engineer (NW),
Military Engineer Services, Kochi - 4.
4. The Command Quartering Officer,
Headquarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi - 4. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)
O.A. 277/2012
R.P. Singal, S/o. Roopchand,
Director (Contracts),
Office of the Chief Engineer (NW),
Kataribagh, Naval Base (P.O),
Kochi - 4. Residing at EA-13,
Naval Base, Kochi - 17. - Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. R. Sreeraj )
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi - 4.
3. The Chief Engineer (NW),
Military Engineer Services,
Kochi - 4.
4. The Command Quartering Officer,
Headquarters, Southern Naval Command,
Kochi - 4. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)
The application having been heard on 12.04.2012, the Tribunal
on the same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER As the facts in these Original Applications are identical and the legal issue raised is the same, these O.As were heard together and disposed of by a common order. O.A 276/12 is taken as the lead case for convenience.
2. The applicants are aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in asking them to vacate the Defence Pool Married accommodation allotted to them in May/July, 2011 in Kataribagh. O.A 276/12
3. The applicant, in the rank of Superintending Engineer, is working under the Chief Engineer (Naval Works), Kochi as Director (Planning). He joined the office of the 3rd respondent on transfer from the Office of the Chief Engineer, Shimla. He reported for duty on 18.02.2011 and requested for married accommodation in Kataribagh area on 11.04.2011. He is entitled for Type E / Type V married accommodation and the same is available in Kataribagh. The applicant's request was duly recommended by Respondent No.3 and his application forwarded to the Command Quartering Officer, Headquarters, Southern Naval Command. He avers that Quarter No. 01-KB/P-25 was lying vacant since November, 2010. Eventhough, he was considered for allotment of Capt 'A' pool accommodation, he was actually given only Lieutenant Pool married accommodation in Kataribagh. He occupied 405 KB allotted to him and admitted his daughter in 11th standard in KV No.1. For the Capt 'A' pool Married accommodation, he was at seniority No.2. In the meanwhile, there was some correspondence between Headquarters (CQO), Southern Naval Command and CE (NW) for married accommodation to Civilian MES Officers. The aforementioned correspondence resulted in his name being removed from the roster for allotment of Capt 'A' Pool Married accommodation without assigning any reason and without allowing the applicant an opportunity of hearing. He submitted Annexure A-3 representation to the 2nd respondent requesting his intervention for allotment of entitled quarters. Vide Annexure A-2 letter, the applicant was requested to vacate the accommodation allotted to him in the Defence Pool and shift to MES Civilian Officers accommodation at Panampally Nagar or to take a hired accommodation. The reason stated in the aforementioned letter that the MES Civilian Officers are not entitled to Defence Pool accommodation except officers holding appointment as per Navy Order 02/08 (NO for brevity) and SNC Quartering Rules (Annexure A-4). The applicant avers that the Annexure A-4 letter is vitiated on account of malafides. He further adds that only now the 3rd respondent states "though the subject accommodation has been allotted to MES Officers (Service/Civilian) over a period of time, there are no documents substantiating the contention that the said accommodation was constructed for MES CGOs. Moreover, this accommodation was only allotted to executives (GEs/AGEs) as per our records due to their nature of duties and that the RPMB entries referred to are more in nature of reference entries which are not backed by authority/authentic document." According to the applicant, he is threatened with action under the provisions of Navy Act, 1957 and also eviction under the Public Premises Act, 1971, in case he does not vacate the Quarter on 31.03.2012. The applicant avers that allotment of quarters is governed by the Provisions of FR 45 and the Rules made thereunder in S.R 311 TO S.R. 316. As per the above rules, there is no provision, which enables the respondents to evict an allottee unless the allotment of quarters to such a post is suspended or cancelled under the rules. Therefore, the applicant avers that the present order to him to vacate the quarters presently occupied by him is patently illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and irrational.
4. The respondents filed reply statement controverting the contentions of the applicant. They submit that the applicant is not entitled to the present accommodation in the Defence Pool. He was only asked to shift to the accommodation at Panampally Nagar, where quarters are constructed exclusively for MES Civilian Officers like the applicant and the same are available. Therefore, they contend that there is no justifiable prejudice to the applicant. The respondents have stated that Defence Pool accommodation is located in different places at Kochi including Jalvayu Vihar at Panampilly Nagar, which is a hired accommodation. These houses are built from the funds allocated by the Integrated Headquarters, MoD (Navy) exclusively for the Defence Officers of the Southern Naval Command, Kochi. The allotment of these houses is controlled by the Command Quartering Officer, Headquarters, Southern Naval Command. The serving officers on their reporting to the duty station are alloted various categories of accommodation depending on the rank and seniority in the appropriate pool and subsequently moved to the entitled accommodation, wherever it is available. They further added that only 40% accommodation for Defence Officers is available in Kataribagh and Naval Base area. The remaining 60% of officers are staying in Defence Pool/Hired accommodation outside the Kataribagh and Naval Base. The Southern Naval Command has separate married accommodation for the serving Defence Officers and MES Civilian Officers. The married accommodation for MES Civilian Officers is available at Panampally Nagar, Kochi. These houses are constructed by the funds allocated by the Engineer-in-Chief branch. The allotment of these houses is done by Chief Engineer (Navy), Kochi. The allotment of quarters from Defence Pool is governed by the NO 02/08, the relevant portion is extracted below:-
"Civilians. The following category of civilian officers are also entitled married accommodation from the Defence Pool accommodation:-
(a) MES Civilian Officers
(i) All Civilian Engineers, Civilian Deputy Chief Engineers posted to all Army, Ari Force and Navy Stations other than New Delhi.
(ii) Civilian Commander Works Engineers (CWEs) posted at places, which are Headquarters of Area Command and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force.
(iii) Civilian Garrison Engineers posted at place, which are Headquarters of Area Command and equivalents in the Navy and Air Force.
(b) Other Civilian Officers Any other Civilian Officer may be considered for allotment of regular/hired house only with the approval of the Government and shown as in the list of married accommodation deficiency of the states."
It is clear that the aforementioned order relates to key appointments of MES Officers (Service / Civilian), who are supposed to render essential services to Navy/Air Force/Army. The respondents submitted that the CE (Navy), Additional C.E, Works Engineer, 3 Garrison Engineers (North, West and E/M and South) are allotted quarters from the Defence Pool in Kataribagh in accordance with NO 02/08. The applicant averred that P-25 and P-26 in Kataribagh are constructed exclusively for MES Civilian Officers. Per contra, the respondents produced the names of Officers to whom these two quarters are alloted from 1970 onwards. It shows clearly that both MES Officers like Garrison Engineer and many Navy Officers in the rank of Lieutenant Cdr. and Captain have been allotted P-25 and P-26 in the past. These two quarters have been constructed in 1956 and 1957 and all houses constructed in Kataribagh are given a nomenclature as E Type. They strongly refuted the contention of the applicant that P-25 and P-26 are to be allotted only to MES Officers. The respondents stated that 423 Defence Officers are staying outside the Naval Base and are waiting for allotment to entitled accommodation from the Defence Pool. Out of 423, 393 Officers hold the rank of Commander and Lieutenant Cadres. Since they serve only for 2-3 years, a few of them never get the privilege to move to the entitled class accommodation during the tenure at Kochi. The respondents further stated that the applicant used the application form prescribed for Defence Service Officers while applying for allotment of quarters. They produced Annexure R-2 to show that he erased the word 'service' and mentioned 'CGO' while applying to the Southern Naval Command Quartering Officer for allotment of married accommodation. He should have used only Annexure R-3 application form for allotment of MD Accommodation for SRO-308. Thus, the application should have gone to the CE (NW), who would have then allotted MES accommodation in Panampilly Nagar. When the applicant joined duty at Kochi, Type IV accommodation was available at Panampally Nagar. No doubt, he was entitled for Type V accommodation.
5. The respondents, therefore, plead that the allotment from the Defence Pool Married accommodation was a mistake, which occurred because, the applicant used the form prescribed for service Officers and applied to the Southern Naval Command Quartering Officer and not CE(NW). They also dispute the contention of the applicant that he opted for lower pool accommodation only for the facility of education of his daughter. The respondents submit that many of the Officers, whose children are studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya and Naval Children School are staying 5-10 kms away from the school. School buses are available from Panampally Nagar for the students of MES Civilian/Service personnel and, therefore, the personal grounds taken up by the applicant cannot over ride the laid down rules and regulations on the subject.
6. The applicant filed rejoinder and reiterated his contention that Type E Married accommodation viz., P-25 and P-26 are meant for MES Officers as per RPMB. He contends that as per RPMB Quarter No. 410KB, 411KB, 318 KB are Type IV MES quarters and not MES Key Personnel Quarters.
7. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the documents.
8. During hearing, the applicant produced the order in OA 46/2006 pronounced by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench. I do not think, it is relevant to this case as in the aforementioned O.A, there was a dispute about ownership of quarters between Navy and Army and hence, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench directed the Secretary, Ministry of Defence to resolve the matter.
9. The respondents concede that allotment of married accommodation to the applicant from the Defence pool was a mistake. It happened solely because he used the application form meant for service officers whose entitlement for Defence pool accommodation is governed by NO 02/2008. The applicant was not holding a post in accordance with NO 02/2008. The respondents produced Annexure R-7 to show the designation of offices entitled for 'A' type accommodation in Kataribagh. The respondents plead that had the applicant applied in the prescribed Annexure R-3 form as per SRO-308 for the MES Officers, he would have been allotted quarters constructed exclusively for MES Officers at Panampally Nagar. Type IV quarters were available when the applicant joined duty in February, 2011. The respondents further submit that 6 MES officers who are the key personnel of MES have been allotted quarters in Katari Bagh in accordance with No. 02/2008. They stated that 423 eligible Navy Officers are awaiting their turn for allotment of quarters in Katari Bagh and 393 Cdrs and Lt. Cdrs are waiting for more than two years. Hence, it is imperative that they follow the orders on the subject and set right the mistake committed initially. They furnished the names and designation of officers who stayed in P25/KB1 and P25/KB/02, stated by the applicant as accommodation exclusively constructed for MES officers at Katari Bagh. It shows that both MES key personnel and Navy Officers were staying in these 2 quarters from 1970 onwards.
10. Admittedly, the applicant has no legally enforceable right to continue in the quarter, which was allotted to him, as, initially he was treated as an entitled serving officer under NO. 02/08 and his request was dealt with accordingly. During hearing, the counsel for the applicant stated that Type IV quarters are not available now at Panampally Nagar. However, construction of two Type V quarters is nearing completion there. If the respondents insist on his shifting out now, he has no other option but to take hired accommodation. In view of the foregoing, the applicant may submit a representation to the competent authority within two weeks for permitting him to continue in the present quarters till his entitled Type V quarter is ready at Panampally Nagar. The respondents are directed to consider his representation, take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to him, within six weeks from the date of receipt of his representation. The status quo will be maintained till his representation is replied to. The O.As are disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
(Dated 12th April, 2012) K. NOORJEHAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER ax