Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
T Jeevanandam vs Epfo on 10 March, 2023
OA/310/01163/2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01163/2018
Dated Friday the 10th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
T.Jeevanandam,
S/o.D.Thiruvengadam,
Door No.54/1, BR Layout,
Near Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Sowripalayam,
Coimbatore - 641 028. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s.S.Saravanan
Vs
1.The Regional PF Commissiner-1,
Regional PF Commissioner Office,
Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore-641 018.
2. The Assistant PF Commissioner (Adm)
Regional PF Commissioner Office,
Dr.Balasundaram Road,
Coimbatore - 641 018. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V.Vijay Shankar
OA/310/01163/2018
2
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
a. To call for the records in No.TN/RO-CBE/A5/HC/WP 18475/2018 dated 06.08.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same to pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. b. To direct the 2nd respondent to repay the withheld amount from the applicant's pension with due interest and to pass such orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:
The applicant is worked as Section Supervisor in the office of the respondent and retired from service on 30.04.2015. He was allotted a house bearing Door No.62 in EFP Staff Quaarters for dwelling. Due to the applicant's family issue, the applicant has filed a divorce case in HMOP NO.1213 of 2015 before the Family Court, Coimbatore. Subsequent to the applicant's retirement and on the applicant requests the said house was allowed for retention up to 31.10.2015 by order in TV/ RO/ CBE/ ADM- II /G / SQ / Retention 2015 datd 19.10.2015. Due to the family disputes, the applicant had came out from the said house on August 2015 itself and OA/310/01163/2018 3 also intimated the same to the respondent office on 21.10.2015 and requested the respondent to take posssession of the said house after completion of allowed retention period. The applicant has contented that without considering the applicant's requests, the respondent office sent a letter dated 29.10.2015, wherein the applicant was directed to handover the possession of the quarters to the care-taker, citing that the retention period expires on 31.10.2015. Being the allottee, the applicant was again directed by the respondent on 16.11.2015 to hand over the possession of the quarters to the care-taker immediately otherwise further will be initiated for eviction. However, the applicant is not in a position to hand over the said possession on or before cut off date as his wife was staying in the quarters since the difference of opinion family dispute has been filed and subjudiced before the Competent Court, the respondents have communicated the applicant that if quarters has not been handed over before due date and marketing rate will be charged over the said unauthorised occupation of the said quarters. Hence, the applicant has challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.18475 of 2016 finally the Hon'ble High Court has granted interim stay. However, the Hon'ble High Court has by its order dated 28.06.2018 directed the applicant to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to redress his grievances. Hence, the applicant has filed the present Original Applicatioon challenged the said order dated 06.08.2018 wherein the amount of Rs.34,520/- has been OA/310/01163/2018 4 recovered from grauity. Being aggrieved the applicant filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed detailed reply and pointed out that the amount which is recovered against the retention of the government quarters. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent by their letter dated 06.08.2018 the recovery has been intiated and the same has been informed to the applicant. The respondents have also contented after the order of the Hon'ble High Court Madras, the respondents' authority by their letter dated 06.08.2018 directed the applicant to release the sum of Rs.34,520/- total dues against the said recovery of damages, electricity and rent immediately, according to the market rent for the period of 01.112015 to 29.02.2016 within 15 days time and further the applicant not credited the same amount. Hence, the respondents have withheld the said amount from his grauitiy.
4. According to the respondent that the said amount can be recovered from the Dearness Relief as per the Provisions as under Rule 72 ( 8) of CCS ( Pension ) Rules 1972. Hence, prayed for the dismissal of OA.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to reply and relied upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Manager Vs Aminuddin stating that the authority cannot be withheld the gratuity for non-vacating quater.
OA/310/01163/2018 5
6. Heard Learned Counsel Mr.S.Saravanan for applicant and Learned Counsel Mr.V.Vijay Shankar for respondent. Perused the records and relevant documents.
7. It is to be noted that the applicant who was working as a Section Supervisor under the control of respondents and retired from service on 30.04.2015. It is to be noted that while he was in service, he was allotted a house bearing Door No.62 in EPF Staff quarters for dwelling. It is to be noted that by letter dated 19.10.2015, the authority has granted permission for retention of quarters up to 31.10.2015. It is also informed to the applicant to vacate the quarters and handover the possession to the care-taker. After receipt of the said letter, the applicant has pointed out his domestic problem and requested to the authorities to take appropriate action to evict the allotted quarter to him from 31.10.2015 as he is not in a position to hand over the same. Since the said quarter has been occupied by his wife because of the family dispute case is filed and sub-judiced at Family Court., Coimbatore. In reply the respondents by their letter dated 29.10.2015 informed that the residence of staff quarters allotted to applicant to be vacated as the retention period expires on 31.10.2015 and as per his intimation of vacating the quarters. Being the allottee of the quarters, it is his responsibility to hand over the possession of the quarters to the care-taker. Again, the respondents by their letter OA/310/01163/2018 6 dated 16.11.2015 in respect of vacating the staff quarter by letter dated 16.11.2015 it informed that continuation of occupation will lead to levy of market rent for the period of unauthorised occupation.
8. It is to be noted that by reply dated 26.10.2016 applicant has reiterated his difficulty for not handing over the said quarter and again by letter dated 04.12.2015 the respondents has issued a memorandum to vacate the said quarter. The applicant keeps exchanging the reply to the said communications however, he has not handed over the possession to the authority according to the respondents direction. Hence, there is no alternative, the authority issued eviction notice dated 01.02.2016 directing the applicant to vacate the said accommodation, failing which the same will be evicted as per The Public Premises Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 and Amendment Act, 2015.
9. It is to be noted that by letter dated 02.05.2016, the recovery has been fixed over the unauthorised occupation of the Government Quarters. Against this, the applicant has approached this Hon'ble High Court Filing Writ Petition No.18475/2016. Initially High Court has granted interim Stay. However, by order dated 28.06.2018 has granted liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal to redress the said order. Hence, the applicant has filed this present OA and prayed aforesaid relief. It is to be noted that the respondent's authority after the order of the Hon'ble High Court Madras, directed the applicant to remit the said sum OA/310/01163/2018 7 of Rs.34,520/-as per the market rate for the said unauthorised occupation of the Government accommodation. Since the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal though the respondent having authority to recover the same from Dearness Relief so far same has not been recovered. It is to be noted that though the learned counsel for the applicant have relied upon the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh Hon'ble High Court Manager Vs.Aminuddin the High Court as stated that Gratuity cannot be withheld for non-vacating quarter as same is illegal. It is to be noted that according to the Provisions as under Rule 72(8) of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, on account of license or damages remaining unpaid after adjustment from the withheld amount of gratutity may be ordered to be recovered by the Directorate of Estates through concerned Accounts Officer from Dearness Relief without the consent of the pensioners and in such cases.
10. In view of the above, in my considered view, the action initated to recover the amount unpaid on account of license or damage can be recovered from the Dearness Relief that is without the consent of the pensioner is permitted under the law. Hence, no inferenc is called for OA dismissed accordingly.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 10.03.2023 IG OA/310/01163/2018