Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
N.K.Vohra vs Union Of India on 5 March, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. OA 394/2010 New Delhi this the 5th day of March, 2010 Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member (A) N.K.Vohra, Working as AEE (QS&C) HQ Chief Engineer Udhampur Zone Udhampur. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Rajiv Manglik Manglik) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary (Defence), Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. Air Officer Commanding, 7 BRD, Air Force Station, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. 3. Commander Works Engineer (AF) Tuglakabad, New Delhi. .. Respondents (By Advocate:Shri A.K.Bhardwaj) ORDER (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the order annexed at page 7 of the rejoinder by which he was allotted accommodation in the Air Force Station Tuglakabad on 17.07.2006 when he was with the Commander Works Engineer MES. He submits that the applicant was residing with his family and he has now been posted to Udhampur, J&K in August 2009. He applied for retention of the accommodation in the Air Force Station which was allowed till 30.12.2009. The applicant made a further request to retain the accommodation as he was in J&K and since in terms of the order enclosed at page 22, the concessions which were available in NE Region were made applicable to J&K also.
2. Learned counsel further states that although the applicant has been in occupation of this quarter nearly four years, by the impugned order the respondents have asked him to vacate the same failing which recovery would be made. He draws attention to the order passed by the Tribunal on 04.02.2010 whereby this impugned order was directed not to be given effect to till the next date and continued thereafter. Thus, it is submitted that once the respondents have allotted such accommodation and there is no mention of the word temporary in the allotment order they cannot now take the stand that family is not entitled to retain the same despite his posting to J&K. It is submitted that the applicant is not averse to his family being accommodated in alternative premises under general pool.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention to the reply particularly to the averments wherein it has been made clear that the accommodation at Air Force Station is meant for the officers of the Air Force and that too subject to the Rules enclosed with the reply which, inter alia, make clear that even those who may be eligible for accommodation it would be subject to the conditions laid down. He draws attention to para 4.3 of the counter reply wherein it has been clarified that even though the accommodation which the applicant is retaining was constructed for married officers, it was allotted to the applicant as a special case by the Air Officer Commanding but that cannot be taken to mean that it was an allotment which can be retained in accordance with the rules for any further period of time, particularly since there are a large number of other families who are entitled as per rules and are awaiting such allotment.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant draws attention to a letter at page 6 of the rejoinder whereby another officer of the MES has been allotted similar accommodation as recently as in 2009. However, learned counsel for the respondents states that the concerned accommodation has since been passed on to the general pool. He further clarifies that the accommodation was allotted to the applicant as a special case because with the availability of MES officers and staff within the Air Force Station, the maintenance and repairs of the accommodation of the officers of the Air Force is facilitated.
5. Admittedly, the rules do not support the contention of the applicant that he is entitled to the accommodation in his occupation. However, it is not disputed that the posting in J&K would entitle the family of the applicant to retain the same or get alternative accommodation in general pool for the family. It is felt that it would be only fair and reasonable for the respondents, who are utilizing MES officers and staff in the Air Force Station by giving them accommodation, not to insist on vacation of the same in the present case as per the policy regarding posting in J&K, until alternative accommodation becomes available for the family.
6. Learned for the respondents upon instruction submits that the respondents have already taken a sympathetic view in the past to allot such accommodation as a special case and it is not their intention that the family of the applicant should unduly suffer on this account when he has been posted to a hard station like J&K.
7. In view of the submissions made above, the applicant is directed to apply for general pool accommodation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Let the respondents not take steps to get the accommodation vacated or make penal recovery of rent until allotment of alternative general pool accommodation to the family of the applicant. The applicant undertakes to shift his family and vacate the present accommodation in terms of the allotment rules of general pool accommodation, within the period specified by them in this regard upon issue of allotment by them. I hope and trust that the respondents would also assist the family, in the absence of the applicant on duty in J&K, to get necessary formalities completed for the purpose. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(N.D.Dayal) Member (A) /kdr/