Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... vs Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal on 21 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Original Application No: 255/2003
This the 21st day of September, 2011
Honble Justice Shri Alok Kumar Singh, Member, (J)
Honble Shri S. P. Singh, Member (A)
1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Rafi Marg, New Delhi through its Joint Secretary(Administration).
2. Central Drugs Research Institute, Chattar Manzil Palace, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow through its Director.
3. Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow through its Director.
Applicants
By Advocate Shri Pankaj Awasthi holding brief of Shri A. K. Chaturvedi.
VERSUS
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, aged about 42 years, s/o Shri D. P. Agarwal, R/o B-7, G.F./D-2, C.S.I.R Scientists Apartments, Sector-K, Aliganj, Lucknow.
Respondent
By Advocate Shri Y. S. Lohit.
O R D E R
By Honble Justice Shri Alok Kumar Singh, Member (J)
1. This O.A. has been filed for the following relief(s):-
(i) To issue an order or direction, evicting the respondent from the CSIRs double room apartment bearing number and address B-7, G.F/D-2, C.S.I.R. Scientists Apartments, Sector-K Aliganj, Lucknow, forthwith.
(ii) To issue an order or direction to the respondent to pay the amount due as per the chart contained as Annexure No. A-3 to this Original Application along with the amount due from 0.1.01.2003, till the date of actual vacation.
(iii) To issue an order of direction to the respondent to pay the interest @ 12% per annum on the amount due to be paid from the date the amount was due, till the date of actual payment.
(iv) To issue an order or direction deemed fit an proper by this Honble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. Before entering into the merits of the case, it is worthwhile to mention that out of the aforesaid relief No.(i) in respect of eviction of respondent from the CSIRs double room apartment in question has become infructuous because, admittedly, this accommodation has been vacated on 04.08.2006 by the respondent. Now we left with the relief of seeking direction to the respondent to pay the rent/penal rent in respect of the period of unauthorised occupation.
3. Some of the background facts/ admitted facts are required to be mentioned which are as under:-
The respondents are a Scientist who was appointed/engaged by the applicants and admittedly, he continued up to 21.3.2000. Thereafter, before the expiry of the tenure, the respondent filed O.A. No. 153/2000, in which an interim order was passed on 31.3.2000 in his favour and as such, he continued in the job. On the other hand, during the pendency of this O.A., notice dated 26.9.2001 was issued for vacation of the accommodation in question. But the O.A. was finally dismissed on 22.12.2000. The respondent went for judicial review before the Honble High Court(W. P. No. 68/2001) wherein, interim order dated 19.01.2001 was passed in favour of the present respondent. The writ petition was allowed on 07.05.2003. As against this judgment, the present applicants filed SLP. In that SLP, an interim order dated 06.10.2003 was passed staying the aforesaid judgment of the Honble High Court. Ultimately, this SLP was decided on 19.12.2008 in favour of the present applicants. It is also however noteworthy that this interim order of Honble High Court dated 19.1.2001 was vacated on 6.8.2001 by the Honble Apex court in the relevant SLP which was filed against this interim order. But the learned counsel for the respondent points out that this vacation of interim order has no relevance because after about 2 years i.e. on 10.7.2003, an office memorandum was issued by none other than the applicants themselves for continuation of a term/appointment of the present respondent followed by another OM dated 14.8.2003. Be that as time may.
4. From the relevant material on record, it transpires that the reasonable and appropriate period for which the respondent can be held responsible for payment of rent/penal rent i.e. from 6.8.2003 when the interim order was passed in the aforesaid SLP till the date of vacation of the accommodation by the respondent i.e. 4.8.2006.
5. Now the question is what should be the rent/penal rent. Whether it should be in accordance with the relevant rules or there should be some concession. The learned counsel for the respondent places his reliance on the judgment/order dated 21.7.2003 passed in O.A. No. 1249/2002 by the CAT Principal Bench. That case also in respect of vacation of accommodation and payment of penal licence fee along with electricity and water charges and in that case also, the present concerned was a Scientist/Research Assistant and the department concerned was the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the CAT Principal Bench observed that though there is no provision of under Rule 21 to prefer an appeal to the Director General against interim order passed under Rule 13 read with Rule 3.2.1 of C.S.I.R.(Residence Allotment) Rules 1997 and was not filed in that case. Still in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that ends of justice would be met by giving direction to the respondent to pay the applicants a sum to be quantified i.e. double of licence fee for a period of unauthorised occupation as well as the electricity and water charges within a stipulated period.
6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case also and keeping in view the entire back ground facts which have already been mentioned hereinbefore, we are also of the view that it would be end of justice if in this case also the respondent who is Scientist/Research Assistant is directed to pay a sum in respect of unauthorised occupation of the accommodation in question to be quantified on the basis of double the licence fee of the aforesaid period of unauthorised occupation i.e. from 6.10.2003 to 04.8.2006 along with electricity and water charges, if any, and not already paid. In the circumstances, we refrain ourselves for finding in respect of pay of interest on the quantified amount.
7. With these observations, the O.A. is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.
(S. P. Singh) (Justice Alok Kumar Singh) Member (A) Member (J) vidya