Prem Chand v. Union Of India

This Original Application was dismissed earlier by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2010 and its operative part is as under: 7. I have given my utmost consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully perused the documents placed before me with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the Applicant claimed that the Chief Engineer, Jaipur had issued a list of tenure stations, which included Hissar as a tenure station. This was completely denied by the Respondents and the learned counsel for the Applicant stated that he did not have any document in his possession in this regard. We cannot, therefore, accept this argument. The Respondents have demonstrated by placing the letter dated 26.05.2008 on record that Hissar is not included in the list of tenure stations. As regards the modified field area, the learned counsel for the Applicant has not been able to convince me that the instructions regarding modified field area, which have been placed on record, would apply to the defence civilians and for the purpose of retention of house in Delhi, while posted in such modified field area. The document regarding the "Standard Operating Procedure" also does not mention Hissar as a tenure station. No instructions have been placed on record to show that an official is permitted to retain the accommodation at the previous place of posting, if transferred from one Command to another. The Applicant has failed to repel the contention of the Respondents that none of the UDCs mentioned by him in the averments, adverted to above, have been allowed to retain the quarters in Delhi on being posted to Hissar. I am also unable to accept the argument that mere mention in the order of transfer dated 19.07.2010, transferring the Applicant from Hissar to Delhi, that the posting was from tenure to peace, would mean that he had been posted in tenure station. The persons in the above list, already adverted to above, from serial number (f) to (g) have been transferred from Suratgarh and Kanasar, both of which are tenure stations. There are other stations, like Ganganagar, Hissar and Bathinda, also in the list which, as per the documents placed on record, are not tenure stations. This argument thus establishes nothing.

8. On the basis of the above consideration I do not find any merit in the OA, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

2. The applicant filed WP (C) No. 389/2011 challenging the aforesaid order before the Honble High Court of Delhi but he withdrew the same with liberty to seek review before the Tribunal and the High Court, vide order dated 21.01.2011, allowed his request and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

3. Thereafter, the applicant filed RA 119/2011 in the aforesaid OA on the ground that under the Right to Information Act, he got certain information which would be relevant to have fresh adjudication of the case. In the said Review Application, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that Hissar station was declared as modified field area and the concessions have been extended only to the officers and PBOR including Army Postal Service but were not extended to the officers of MES. As such, the applicant was not entitled to retain the government married accommodation at his old duty station i.e. at Delhi. Vide order dated 10.05.2012, the aforesaid RA was allowed and the order dated 07.12.2010 was recalled and the OA has been restored to its original number.

4. The Annexure A-1 letter dated 22.09.2008 of the Respondent No. 5 is under challenge in this Original Application. By the said letter, the applicants request for retention of accommodation at his last place of posting was rejected by HQ CE (WAC) AF Palam vide their letter dated 13.09.2008. According to the said letter, copy of which has been filed with this OA, the applicants application dated 13.06.2008 was returned unactioned and he was directed to vacate the accommodation allotted to him by 20.09.2008 without fail.

5. The background of this case is that by Movement Order No. 1007/290/E1B dated 13.06.2008, the applicant was transferred from GE (AF) North, Palam, Delhi Cantt under the HQ Chief Engineer (WAC) Air Force, Delhi Cantt to CWE Hissar. Thereafter, he requested the HQ Chief Engineer (WAC), Air Force, Delhi Cantt, vide his letter dated 13.06.2008, to allow him to retain the Government accommodation (bearing No. Qr. No. P-91/1, Old Pinto Park, Air Force, Palam, Delhi Cantt) in his possession for a period of two years i.e. duration of tenure posting at Hissar Station as his children are college going and they have no house of their own. The respondents rejected his request as aforesaid.

6. The respondents contention was that under the provisions of the existing rules, the applicant was not entitled to retain the accommodation as Hissar station to which he has been posted is not a tenure station. It is not a modified field station as per the latest status. As mentioned earlier, after having considered the rival contention, this OA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 07.12.2010 accepting the contention of the respondents.

7. However, the applicant has brought certain new facts, which have not been considered by this Tribunal, in the Review Application No. 119/2011 (supra) filed by him. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.K. Trivedi has submitted that with regard to the query raised by the applicant before the Central Public Information Officer of the Western Command under the Right to Information Act, 2005, whether Satrod (Hissar) is modified field station as per the Government of Indias instructions dated 13.01.1994, it has been replied to him, vide letter dated 09.04.2011 to the effect that Satrod (Hissar) is modified field area as per Government of India letter dated 13.01.1994. Further, in reply to the application of one Shri Kunal Kalia under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been stated by Headquarters Chief Engineer, Western Command C/o 56 APO, vide their letter dated 28.02.2011, that the facility to retain the Government accommodation at the old duty station to the employees who are posted on tenure station of CE WC at Suratgarh and Sugar Sector which are covered under the field/modified field area has been granted by the Government. In the said letter, it has also been stated that retention of Government accommodation at the old duty station to the Defence Civilian Employees serving in stations under Modified Field Area is also applicable as per Government of India letter No. 37269/AG/PS-3 (a)/90/D (Pay/Services) dated 13.01.1994.

8. The respondents have filed their reply. They maintained that Hissar is not a modified station as per the Government of Indias instructions and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to retain the Government accommodation at his old duty station.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri A.K. Trivedi and I have also perused the entire documents available on record. It is seen that the respondents have clearly mentioned in their letter dated 09.04.2011 addressed to the applicant that Satrod (Hissar) is modified field area. The said letter is extracted below: INFORMATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT  2005. Reference your application dated 28 Jan 2011.

2. The information under RTI Act 2005 sought by you vide your application is furnished as under:- (a) It is intimated that Satrod (Hissar) is modified Area as per Govt. of India, MoD letter No.37269/AG/PS-3(a)/90/D (Pay/Services) dated 13 Jan 1994 and policy on retention of family accommodation is as under:-

(i) Retention of family accommodation allotted by Government at the old duty station on payment of normal rent. If the accommodation retained is required to be allotted to another entitled personnel for exigencies of service, the families may be shifted to alternative accommodation whether appropriate or inferior to the status of the individual concerned.

10. It is seen that the applicants request for retention of the Government accommodation at his last place of posting was rejected on the ground that Hissar station is not a tenure station and it is not a modified field area. Now it has come on record by the respondents letter dated 09.04.2011 that Satrod (Hissar) is a modified field area. However, the contention of the respondents was that Hissar station was declared as modified field area and the concessions have been extended only to the officers and PBOR including Army Postal Service only but were not extended to the officers of MES. As such, the applicant was not entitled to retain the government married accommodation at his old duty station i.e. at Delhi. The respondents have not produced any order to the effect that the declaration of Hissar as a modified area would extend only to the officers and PBOR including Army Postal Service only. Even otherwise, restricting the concession of retention of accommodation at the last place of posting to only one category of officers based on their hierarchy is arbitrary and, therefore, tenure of concession to the persons like the applicant cannot be accepted.

11. In the above facts and circumstances, I find merit in this O.A and accordingly the same is allowed. Consequently, Annexure A-1 impugned order dated 22.09.2008 denying the request of the applicant to retain the accommodation at Delhi is quashed and set aside. Consequently, I direct the respondents to allow the applicant to retain the aforesaid accommodation during the tenure of the applicant at Hissar. As the tenure of the applicant at Hissar must have been over now, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders under intimation to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. (G. GEROGE PARACKEN) MEMBER (J) `SRD