LexSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ETC. versus SADASIVA MOHANTY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ETC. v. SADASIVA MOHANTY OCTOBER 25, 1996 I B [K. RAMASWAMY AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.) ' Service Law: Orissa Service Code-Rules 2(ii), 11,JO+-Allotment, of Govt. C residence-Employees retiring-Continued to occupy the houses-f'enal rent for overstay-Power of Government to levy--Upheld-#'here the rules are not made applicable Govt. is devoid of power to levy penal rents for over- stay-<Jovemment servants to pay penal rent beyond the period permitted by ·the order of competent authority or High Court-High Court to consider each case only on exceptional circumstances for giving directions to permit a D Government servfl!lt beyond prescribed period. . .. , . I . . CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14534 of 1996 etc. etc. "-< From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.1993 of the Orissa Ad- E ministrative Tribunal at Bhubneshwar in OA No. 'J27 of 1992 F G P.N. Misra'for the Appellants. K.N. Tripathi, Janaranjan Das, K. Vishwanatiian and K.V. Venkataraman for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : · Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by-special IeaVe arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tn"bunal, Bhubaneswar made on 255.1992 in OA No. 1549/90 and batch. -·· The admitted position iS that all the respondents are Government H servants. They were allotted Government houses in Bhubaneswar and 820 STATE v. S. MOHANTY 821 Cuttack during their tenure of office as Government servants. On their A .., retirement, they did not vacate the premises, though their allotments have - been cancelled. Consequently, the Government had charged them with penal rents of 5 times the standard rent prescribed under the Orissa Service Code. When they challenged the levy in the Tribunal, it held that the Government have no power to assess damages by way of penalty in B excess of one time standard rent. Therefore, the order passed by the Government is not valid in law. Mr. P.N. Misra, learned counsel for the State, contends that the vi_eWtaken by the Tribunal is contrary to Rule 11 of the Orissa Service Code, (for short, the 'Code') which contemplates that ' ' a Government servant, after retirement, if he over-stays beyond the maxi- mum period of four months as provided under the Rules, is required to c pay penal rate of rent at the rate of 5 times the standard rent charged for the period of occupation of the quarter beyond four months. Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct in law. Mr. Janaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying upon Appendix to the rules, contends that the Government have D prescribed the procedure for allotment of the house and for utilisation, the Government servants are required to pay standard rent fixed for the house. In other words, there is no power to fix five times the standard rent for overstay. E The question, therefore, is: whether the Tribunal's view is correct in law? It is seen that under Rule 104 of the Rules, the Government have ... reserved its power to regulate the allotment of the houses, subject to the terms and conditions, as may be regulated under the instructions issued in furtherance thereof by the Government. Rule 11 deals with allotment of F the house to the officers either owned by the Government or leased by the Government, as the case may be, Rule 2(ii) provides, by general or special order, for fixing fee in excess of what is prescribed in clause (b) referred to earlier. Clause (6) provides that wl.iere the Government servant does not vacate the residence, after cancellation of the allotment, the Government G is empowered to collect penal rent. For that, procedure has been laid down· Ir· by the proceedings of the Government dated December 12, 1986. Therein Clause (2) adumberates that a Government servant who cannot vacate the quarters, for genuine reasons of health or other absolutely. compelling reasons, may retain the quarter for a further period of one month only, with the prior written permission of the Director of Estates on advance H 822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A payment of standard rent Fixed for the quarter. In other words, the Government servant after retirement/transfer is required to vacate the ( quarter except for genuine reasons with prior written permission of the Director of Estates. He shall be entitled to retain the quarter only f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.