Whether charges for unlawful retention of government quarter can be recovered after it is deposited in bank account of pensioner?

The question is whether the respondent No. 3 was competent to direct the respondent No. 1- Bank to deduct an amount of Rs. 96,475/- from the pension account of the petitioner with it and further to remit it by way of deduction for unlawful retention of the Government quarter for the period from 1-4-1991 to 26-2-1998.

4. We are not entering into the controversy as to whether there was in fact retention of the quarter or that it was an illegal retention for the period from 1-4-1991 to 26-2-1998 by the husband of the petitioner. The reliance is placed upon Rule 72(6)(ii)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which runs as under:

Rule 72(6)(ii)(b):

"(ii) ... (b) after the word "Estates", the following shall be added, namely:-

"Any amount becoming due on account of Licence fee for retention of Government accommodation beyond four months after retirement and remaining unpaid may be ordered to be recovered by the Directorate of Estates through the concerned Accounts Officer from the dearness relief without the consent of the pensioner. In such cases no dearness relief shall be disbursed until full recovery of such dues have been made."

In our view, in terms of the aforesaid Rule, the amount of clearness allowance could have been recovered before depositing the amount of pension in the Bank account of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that such amount was not deducted. Once the amount of pension is disbursed and deposited in the Bank account of the petitioner, we do not find that any power is conferred upon the respondent No. 3- the Assistant Estate Manager under the aforesaid provision to direct the Bank to deduct such amount from the pension account of the petitioner and to remit it back to him. The recovery of the amount from the pension account of the petitioner is, therefore, unlawful and without any authority. The same cannot, therefore, be sustained and will have to be quashed and set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 685 of 2006

Decided On: 24.11.2018

 Mrinal  Vs.  State Bank of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.K. Deshpande and Vinay Joshi, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 686

Print Page

Whether government should recover damage rent from employee for overstaying in government quarter without issuing show cause notice?

The CAT has referred to the decision of this Court in K.B. Yadav vs. Union of India (W.P. No. 1885 of 2003 decided on 19.9.2003), in which, it is held that the action of recovery of damage rents without issuance of Show Cause Notice or compliance with principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside. To the same effect are the observations made by this court in case of Shri. N.C. Sharma vs. Union of India - MANU/MH/0301/2004 : 2004 (1) ATJ 481, where again it was held that the principles of natural justice have to be adhered and an opportunity will have to be given to the concerned employee before the recovery or adjustment are effected on the ground of any alleged unauthorised occupation of the Railway quarters. Since, the view taken by the CAT is in consonance with the ruling of the Division Benches of this Court, there is no good ground made out to interfere.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3327 of 2006

Decided On: 30.08.2018

 Union of India Vs. Sayed Naimuddin

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and M.S. Sonak, JJ.

Citation: 2019(1) MHLJ 653

Print Page