Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Chandra Lohar vs Union Of India And Others on 24 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2530 of 2026
------
Gopal Chandra Lohar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Prakash,Advocate
--------
Order No.04: Dated:24thApril, 2026
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00831/2025 has been challenged.
2. The core of the issue is assessment of the calculation of the amount of damages in lieu of retention of quarter which was allotted in favour of the writ petitioner when he was in service and which is said to be unauthorized retention after his retirement from service on 31.12.2021.
3. The basic issue as has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner that the damages have been casted upon the petitioner by virtue of communication dated 17.4.2023 (Annexure-3) casting liability of a sum of Rs. 1,06,403/- with a direction to pay back the aforesaid amount, failing which, disciplinary proceeding will be initiated under Rule 13 of the CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as Rule,2022).
4. The further grievance urged by the Petitioner is that the authority concerned has committed a serious departure by arbitrarily enhancing the 1 assessed amount from Rs. 1,06,403/- to Rs. 16,11,1635/- which would be evident from Annexure 5 dated 22.04.2024.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and on 17.4.2026 has passed an order by taking note of the aforesaid submissions, for ready reference the order dated 17.4.2026 is being referred herein under:
"02/Dated: 17thApril, 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It has been submitted by referring to the content of the order passed by the Tribunal, i.e., the court of first instance, that the grievance which was agitated has been rejected by passing a cryptic order.
3. The prayer was made before the Tribunal by questioning the very basis of calculation of the amount for which the liability has been casted upon the writ petitioner.
4. It has been submitted by referring to Annexure 3 that the aforesaid annexure by way of second reminder, apprising the writ petitioner to the total amount of monetary liability to the tune of Rs. 1,06,403/- in lieu of the occupation of quarter without authority of law.
5. It has been submitted in Annexure 5, which was challenged before the Tribunal that a serious departure has been made by extending the amount from Rs. 1,06,403/- to Rs. 16,11,163/-.
6. We have considered the calculation of amount as has been arrived at in Annexure 3 dated 17.04.2023 that in case the writ petitioner would have vacated the quarter up to 31.03.2023, then the liability to make payment of the market rent would have been Rs. 1,06,403/Such calculation has been made by referring the general licence fee/penal licence fee.
7. This Court, when considered the Annexure 5 dated 22.04.2024, has found that the new calculation has been made making departure from the serial No. 4 onwards.
8. This Court prima facie is of the view that the Annexure 3 since is the creation of the respondent and has been issued by the Administrative Officer while the Annexure 5 which is the departure from the details of calculations carried out by the Administrative Officer, that too calculated by the Section Officer, which is lower in hierarchy in comparison to that of the Administrative Officer.
9. It is further evident that the Tribunal without calling upon the respondent has disposed of the application
10. This Court, in order to come to the conclusive finding, is of the view that the departure which has been made from Annexure 3 to Annexure 5 needs explanation by the authority at the highest level.
11. Let the Director, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, along with the Administrative Officer, the authority who has calculated Annexure-3 dated 17.04.2023 and the Section Officer; who has calculated Annexure 5 dated 22.04.2024, appear physically in this court, along with the entire record.2
12. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to produce the copy of the original application so as to see the nature of prayer which was made before the Tribunal.
13. List this case on 20th April, 2026."
6. This Court, in order to come to the conclusive finding, has directed in paragraph no.10 of the aforesaid order that as to why departure has been made from Annexure-3 to Annexure-5. The same is to be explained by the highest-level authority.
7. This Court, therefore, has directed the Director, CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, along with the Administrative Officer, the authority who has calculated Annexure-3 dated 17.4.2023 and the Section Officer; who has calculated Annexure-5 dated 22.4.2024, for their physical appearance in this Court, along with the entire records.
8. In compliance of the order dated 17.4.2026, Mr. Prof. Arvind Kumar Mishra, Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Mr. Aditya Mainak (COA, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Mr. Kamal Kujur, A.O., CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Section Officer, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad and Mr. Keshri Kumar, Section Officer, CSIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad are present in the Court.
9. In the meanwhile, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents.
10. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, has placed reliance upon the said affidavit and sought to justify the quantification of the amount undertaken, as reflected in Annexure-5. It has been submitted that such quantification is premised upon the Rule enacted on 23.02.2022, which has been annexed as Annexure-A series at page 45 of the counter-affidavit dated 18.04.2026.
3
11. From the record it is evident that the petitioner has superannuated from his service on attaining age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. The quarter in question had been allotted under the then prevailing CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rule, 1997'), prior to the coming into force of the subsequent Rule of 2022.
12. This Court, therefore, has put a query to the Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad and also the learned counsel representing the respondents, as to whether the new Rule, 2022 can be made applicable to such employee who has already superannuated from service prior to coming into effect the said Rule, 2022.
13. In response, the argument has been advanced that the new Rule, 2022 since has come during the course of retention of quarter and, as such, the same would be applicable.
14. This Court has again put a query that what is the legal interpretation of the provision as contained in Clause 24.1 of Rules 2022which provides a provision to the effect that any valid allotment of residence under the provision of Allotment Rules in force immediately prior to commencement of these rules shall be deemed to be an allotment made under these rules notwithstanding the fact that the employee ceases to be entitled with reference to clause 3.1 to the type of residence already allotted to him.
15. This Court has further posed a query as to whether the stipulation contained in Clause 24.1 would extend to a person who has already been separated from service upon attaining the age of superannuation because 4 once the individual concerned has superannuated, he ceases to be regarded as an employee.
16. At this juncture, Mr. Abhay Prakash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instruction of the Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad, who is present in the Court, has submitted that he will revisit the calculation as per Rule, 1997.
17. At this juncture, upon considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondents, this Court deemed it appropriate to adjourn the matter, granting one week's time to the Respondents to come forth with a fresh calculation.
18. Accordingly, let this matter be listed on 01.05.2026.
19. The personal appearance of the Director, SCIR-CIMFR, Dhanbad is hereby dispensed with, however, the Administrative Officer and Sections Officers shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 24thApril, 2026 KNR 5