Amitabh Kumar And Anr vs Director Of Estates And Anr

The second petitioner, admittedly, has retired from service. Before his retirement, the first petitioner, his son had applied for allotment of the house in substitution of the father. Undoubtedly, the allotment could not be made within the time asked for. Initially, the Department extended time, as sought for four months but on expiry thereof, he did not vacate the premises. Consequently, the order of extension was withdrawn. As a result, the first petitioner remained unauthorisedly in occupation for which he was directed to pay penal rentals. The petitioners have questioned the correctness of the orders in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated August 28, 1996 dismissed the O.A. 132/96.

Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the 2nd petitioner is eligible to apply for allotment in substitution of his father. Since the issue of allotment to which he is eligible was not determined for long and the delay was on the part of the respondent- Government, the penal rentals cannot be imposed upon them. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the ad hoc allotment rules issued in Memo No. 12035 dated November 9, 1987, Item No. (ii) deals with ad hoc allotment to the dependent of officer who seeks voluntary retirement. It provides that dependent of an officer who seeks voluntary retirement would also be eligible for ad hoc allotment subject to the fulfilment of the other prescribed conditions given in the orders regarding ad hoc allot- ment/regular isation on retirement of Government servants. Item No. (viii) postulates date of regularisation and provides that "the date of regularisa-tion should be from the date of cancellation in case the eligible dependent is already in Government service and is entitled for regularisation and not from the date of issue of the orders which was the practice being followed till now". In other words, even if the allottee is in possession of Govern-ment accommodation, it may be regularised. However, the Government employee who is in unauthorised occupation is required to pay penal rentals. It is contended that since the father was.to retire and his son was and is entitled to the ad hoc allotment, adjudication of the application made by the petitioner No. 2 could not be charged. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that the entitlement to which the son is eligible is different from the entitlement to which the father was eligible. Therefore, the mere fact that the application had been made for ad hoc allotment on the basis of the fact that the son was in Government service, does not make any difference. Obviously, the first petitioner was in unauthorised occupa-tion, as a consequence, under the rules he is required to pay the penal rentals. Under these circumstances, we find no force in the contention and the Tribunal's order does not warrant interference. Two months time is granted from today for payment of penal rentals.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.