RATAN LAL MEENA V. CHIEF COMMI OF INCOMET TAX ORS

CW/376/2014

AI Insights

The case involves Ratan Lal Meena, an employee of CPWD on deputation to the Income-Tax Department, who was allotted government accommodation in Jaipur during his deputation. After being transferred back to Delhi and relieved of his duties, he failed to vacate the accommodation within the stipulated two months, leading to a demand for demurrage rent from the government. Meena contested this demand at the Tribunal, which was rejected, leading to the present writ petition. The main legal contention revolved around whether Meena, after his transfer and the deduction of HRA, could still be considered an unauthorized occupant of the government accommodation in Jaipur.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726268 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: PUNIT SINGHVI
• Keywords: Deputation; HRA deduction; Unauthorized occupant; Government accommodation; Demurrage rent

Judgement Text

"-1- D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.376/2014. Ratan Lal Meena VS CCIT & Ors. D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.376/2014. Ratan Lal Meena. VERSUS Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Others. 13.01.2014. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA Mr.Punit Singhvi, for petitioner. ***** Instant petition is directed against order of the ld.Tribunal dt.20.12.2013 upholding directions of the respondents against petitioner who is an employee of CPWD and working on deputation with the office of Commissioner of Income-Tax and during the course of deputation a house (Quarter No.158/II, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur) was allotted to him but after he was transferred from Jaipur to Delhi and relieved on 20.01.2009, he was required to vacate the government accommodation by 21.3.2009 but indisputably he did not vacate the premises and that was considered to be unauthorized occupant after expiry of the period for which an incumbent can hold the government accommodation after being relieved from the office and accordingly a notice was served calling upon him to pay the demurrage rent and at this stage he approached the ld.Tribunal where his Original Application was rejected under the order impugned. The facts, which can be culled out from the material available on record, are that the petitioner who is a substantive employee holding the post of Assistant in CPWD, came on deputation to the Zonal Accounts Office, CBDT (Income-Tax) and while he was on deputation in the Income-Tax Department, a Government -2- D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.376/2014. Ratan Lal Meena VS CCIT & Ors. Accommodation (Quarter No.158/II, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur) was allotted to him and thereafter he was repatriated back to his parental department and was relieved vide letter dt.20.01.2009 and he joined his place of posting at Delhi in CPWD but failed to hand over vacant possession of the government accommodation allotted to him at Jaipur and it is not disputed that one can retain the government accommodation after being relieved from the office only for two months. The respondents served him a show cause notice dt.11.03.2013 and after granting opportunity of hearing an order came to be passed on 01.04.2013 asking him to deposit the demurrage rent of the government accommodation which was retained by petitioner after expiry of the period of two months, which came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Original Application before the ld.Tribunal and that came to be rejected vide order impugned dt.20.12.2013. The main thrust of submission of counsel for petitioner is that after he was transferred and relieved on 20.01.2009 and joined his duty in the Ministry of Urban Development, Delhi but his family & children stayed at Jaipur and thereafter he was again posted at Jaipur on 11.01.2010 in his parent department who started making deductions of HRA from his salary, as such, he cannot be considered to be an unauthorized occupant and the notice served upon him of unauthorized occupant was contrary to such principles of law and once the HRA was deducted and both being the offices of Central Government, at least the demurrage rent could not be charged and notice served upon him, was uncalled for and this fact -3- D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.376/2014. Ratan Lal Meena VS CCIT & Ors. has not been properly appreciated by the ld.Tribunal while passing the order impugned. The ld.Tribunal in its order observed that no letter was ever sent by the petitioner through his parent department to the department where he worked on deputation (Income-Tax) and even if such a letter was sent unless permission is granted, if permissible under the law, the petitioner was not legally authorized to retain the government accommodation which was provided for the employees of the Income-Tax Department and merely because he was transferred back to Jaipur by his parent department that will not grant him right to retain the government accommodation and if the CPWD has deducted HRA from his salary, under the ordinary course, still in our considered view, the petitioner was not within his rights to retain the government accommodation, provided to him by the Department of Income-Tax, and he was under obligation to hand over vacant possession thereof within two months from being transferred and relieved from the office and this what the ld.Tribunal has also observed under the order impugned. We do not find any apparent error having been committed by the ld.Tribunal under the order impugned which may require interference of this court. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed. (J.K.RANKA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. All corrections made in judgment/order have been All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A. "