Case Note & Summary
The case involves a challenge by the Union of India and other petitioners against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench, dated 6.2.2013 in O.A.No.279/2012. The respondent, Smt. D.N. Sarojadevi, was employed as Steno-I at Air Force Station, Yelahanka, and was provided government accommodation within the station premises. Upon promotion as Personal Secretary, she was transferred to Station Headquarters Training Command, Indian Air Force Unit at Hebbal, Bangalore, and joined duty on 1.3.2011. As per policy, defence civilian employees must vacate quarters on posting to another station. The respondent requested permission to retain the quarters for two months from 28.2.2011 to 27.5.2011, undertaking to vacate on 28.5.2011. The CAT directed the petitioners to allow the respondent to continue in the present premises till alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place was made available. The High Court, in writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, upheld the CAT order, finding it just and proper, and dismissed the petitions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Government Accommodation - Transfer - Retention - The respondent, a civilian employee of the Indian Air Force, was transferred and sought to retain her quarters. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed her to continue in the present premises till alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place was made available. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the Tribunal's direction was just and proper, and no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a transferred employee is entitled to retain government accommodation until alternate accommodation is provided at the new place of posting.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed; order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6.2.2013 in O.A.No.279/2012 upheld.
Law Points
- Government accommodation
- Transfer
- Retention
- Alternate accommodation
- Service conditions
- Civilian employees
- Defence establishment
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (02) 17
Writ Petition Nos.37536 to 37541/2013 (S-CAT)
S. Abdul Nazeer, H.S. Kempanna
M. Unnikrishnan for petitioners, V.S. Naik for respondent
Union of India and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Central Administrative Tribunal regarding retention of government accommodation by a transferred employee.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of CAT order directing retention of accommodation until alternate accommodation provided.
Filing Reason
Petitioners aggrieved by CAT order allowing respondent to continue in present premises till alternate ground floor accommodation made available.
Previous Decisions
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O.A.No.279/2012 dated 6.2.2013 directed petitioners to allow respondent to continue in present premises till alternate ground floor accommodation at new place is made available.
Issues
Whether the CAT order directing retention of accommodation until alternate accommodation is provided is legally sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that as per policy, defence civilian employees must vacate quarters on posting to another station.
Respondent sought retention of quarters for two months and undertook to vacate.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal's direction to allow the respondent to continue in the present premises till alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place is made available is just and proper, and no interference is warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
These writ petitions are directed against the order in O.A.No.279/2012 dated 6.2.2013 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, has directed the respondent to continue in the present premises till an alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place is made available to her.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.A.No.279/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which passed an order on 6.2.2013 directing the petitioners to allow the respondent to continue in the present premises till alternate ground floor accommodation at the new place is made available. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
