http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SADASIVA MOHANTY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH      CIVIL APPEAL  Nos. 14542-14547,  14537,  14541,  14540, 14539, 14536,  14535/96 @  SLP (C) Nos.9273-78, 14606, 8336, 17195, 16791 of 1994 and 1389 & 117 of 1996)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Bhubaneswar  made  on 25.5.1992 in OA No.1549/90 and batch.      The admitted  position is  that all the respondents are Government servants. They were allotted Government houses in Bhubaneswar and  Cuttack during  their tenure  of office  as Government servants.  On  their  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 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  view taken  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 maximum period of four  months as  provided under the Rules, is required to 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. 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  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. The question,  therefore, is: whether the Tribunal’s view is correct in law? It is seen that under Rule 104 of the Rules,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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  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 where the  Government servant does not vacate the residence, after cancellation  of  the  allotment,  the  Government  is empowered to  collect penal  rent. For  that, procedure  has been laid  down by  the proceedings  of the Government dated December 12,  1986. Therein  Clause (2)  adumbrates  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 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 for  a period of one month that too on  paying in  advance the  standard  rent.  Clause  (5) envisages that  a Government servant after retirement may be allowed to  retain the quarter occupied by him for a maximum period of four months as provided in the Rule of the Code on advance payment of normal rent for four months. But his DCRG will be  released  only  after  he  vacates  the  Government quarter. Rent  at the  rate of  five times the standard rent will also  be charged  for the  period of  occupation of the quarter beyond four months.      Thus, it could be seen that a Government servant, after he ceases  to be  the Government  servant,  is  required  to vacate the premises after the expiry of four months, subject to his  paying the  standard rent as prescribed under Clause (5). If he overstays beyond four months, he shall be charged the rent  at the  rate  of  five  times  the  standard  rent prescribed under  the Rules.  Appendix to  the Rules  relied upon by  Mr. Janaranjan  Das, has no bearing to these cases. Therein, where  a Government  servant is  having a house but fraudulently  has  obtained  allotment  of  the  house,  the Government  is   entitled  to   have  him   dispossessed  in accordance with the Rules but he is required to pay only the standard rent.  While he  was in possession of the out-house of the allotted house lets out and without permission of the Estate Officer,  he is  required to  pay the  standard  rent prescribed for  the house  which was allotted to him for the out-house as  well. That would indicate that it was required to  deal   with  special   circumstances.  But   in  general circumstances, Appendix  to Rule  11 is of little assistance to the  Government servant  who overstays after four months. The  Tribunal,   therefore,  was   wholly  illegal   in  its conclusion that the Government is not entitled to levy penal rents, after the expiry of four months.      In regard  to appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.14606/94 filed against  the order  of the  Tribunal in  OA No.2078/92 dated  18.11.1993,   the  admitted   position  is  that  the respondent was  staying in a Government quarter at Karanjia. It is  seen that  the above  regulation referred  to earlier relate to  the quarter allotted to the Government servant in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Under these circumstances, the levy prescribed by  special order  for payment of the penal rents in excess  of the prescribed limit to the houses occupied or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

owned by  the Government  at Cuttack  and  Bhubneshwar,  the Government thereby,  has  denied  itself any power to charge penal  rentals   to  buildings  owned  or  occupied  by  the Government  in   other  places   unless  rules   or  general directions are issued. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in respect of that case only. But in all other cases, the order passed by  the competent  authority has  become  final.  The Government is  devoid of  power of  levy penal rents for the overstay. Even  in respect of the cases where the Government servant overstays  beyond the  period permitted  by the High Court, the  Government servants  are required  to pay  penal rent beyond  the period permitted by the order passed by the competent authority  or by  the High  Court, as the case may be. the  High Court  requires to  consider each case only on exceptional circumstances  for giving directions to permit a Government servant  beyond prescribed  period. The object is to enable the Government servants on transfer or waiting for allotment to be entitled to be provided with accommodation.      The  appeals  are  accordingly  allowed  to  the  above extent, but, in the circumstances, without costs.