AMITABH KUMAR AND ANR.versusDIRECTOR OF ESTATES AND ANR.

A                        AMITABH KUMAR AND ANR.
                                           v.
                     DIRECTOR OF ESTATES AND ANR.

                                FEBRUARY 3, 1997

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]

         Allotment of Government quarters-Father, a government servant,
  taking voluntary retireme!J.t-Extension of time of retention of quarler-Expiry
  of--Unautho1ised occupation-Penal rent-Charging of-Entitlement of son
C _to ad-hoc allotment-Altogether a different matter-Does not make any dif-
  ference and under the 1Ules the father is liable to pay penal rent for the period
  of unauthorised occupation.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 3338 of 1997.
D
          From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.96 of the Central Ad-                ~
                                                                                      -I
    ministrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 132 of 1996.

          Mahabir Singh for the Petitioners.
                                                              ,,.,

E         The following Order of the Court was delivered :                                 ,
          Delay condoned.

      , The second petitioner, admittedly, has retired from service. Before
  his retirement, the first petitioner, his son had applied for allotment of the
F 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 Consequently, the order of extension was withdrawn.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 correct-
G
  ness of the orders in the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the impugned order




H
  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
                                                                                      -    .
                                                                                               l


                                /.
                                         854
                  A KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF ESTATES                         855
determined for long and the delay was on the part of the respondent- A
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 B
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/regularisation 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 C
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 D
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 E
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 <111d
 the Tribunal's order does not warrant interference. Two months time is
granted from today for payment of penal rentals.                               F
       The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

G.N.                                                     'Petition dismissed.