K. Venkataswami, J. - (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the levy and collection of Rs. 8696.10 towards 'excess licence fee' at market rates for government residence for the period January 1976 to May. 1977 by deducting from the pay bill of the appellant. The appellant is now a retired IPS Officer. While he was in service, he was given Government residence as per Government rules. By notification dated 1-1-1976 issued by the Ministry of Works and Housing New Delhi, certain amendments were introduced to the Allotment of Government Residence (General Pool). New Delhi Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Clauses 3 and 4 are relevant which read as follows:-"(3) If on the 1st day of January, 1976, an Officer in occupation of Government residence owns a house or any other member of his family owns a house, he shall surrender the Government residence in his occupation. (4) Where an officer to whom sub-Rule (3) is applicable does not surrender the Government residence as required under that sub-Rule, he shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the residence, services, furniture and garden charges, equal to the market licence fee as may be determined by Government from time to time."
(2.) It is common ground that the appellant along with his brother became a joint owner of a house at Delhi on 1-4-1974. However, this newly constructed house of the appellant and his brother was let out to Dr. S. C. Basu and his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Ira Basu from 1-4-1974 under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958 for three years after getting the orders of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- to be shared equally between the two owners. The respondents taking note of the fact that the appellant owns a house at Delhi called upon him to vacate the Government residence as per clause(3) of the Rule mentioned above. The appellant repeatedly pointed out his inability to surrender the Government accommodation as he is only a joint owner and that house also was rented out long ago. But that was not accepted by the respondents and consequently the appellant was asked to pay damages for use and occupation as per clause (4) of the Rules. That is how the amount in dispute was deducted from the salary of the appellant for the period mentioned above.
(3.) Aggrieved by the deductions. initially the appellant moved this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the amendments introduced by Notification dated 1-1-1976. Subsequently, he withdrew that writ petition with liberty to file similar writ petition in the Delhi High Court. He thereafter moved the Delhi High Court challenging the amendment issued in the Notification dated 1-1-1976 and the same was later on transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, which by the impugned order upheld the validity of the amendment and declined to interfere with the impugned collection towards damages for use and occupation for the said period. Hence this appeal by way of special leave.;