HARI KISHORE S/O SHRI SHIV CHARAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter has been heard in part on numerous dates and had been adjourned directing learned Counsel for respondents to seek instruction from respondents on applicant�s request that since eight Type-II quarters are still vacant, whether applicant could be adjusted against one such quarter. Shri B.S. Mor, learned Counsel for respondents pointed out that he has instructions to state that his request cannot be acceded to. In the circumstances, I proceed to decide the matter on merits.

(2.) By present OA, challenge is made to order dated 10.2.2006 vide which allotment made earlier of quarter No. C-77 (Type-II), Krishi Vihar, New Delhi was cancelled and allotted quarter No. A-106 (Type-I), Krishi Vihar, New Delhi. Further vide said order, respondents gave him time upto 28.2.2006 to vacate the quarter failing which licence fee at damage rent is to be charged w.e.f. 01.3.2006.

(3.) RESPONDENTS contested applicant�s claim stating that he has not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. On the strength of letter dated 14.3.2006 he obtained status quo order though no such letter had been issued by respondents. Moreover, applicant annexed certain note portion of file to substantiate his claim, which is not justified. He is entitled to government accommodation as per his entitlement under respondents rule relating to allotment of residence as well as FR & SR. Order dated 10.2.2006 directing applicant to vacate quarter in question is legal and correct as per Rules 28 (iii) of ICAR Hqrs. (Allotment of Residences) Rules 1981 and FR & SR, applicant was entitled to Type-I accommodation only. However, keeping in view in mind about less demand of quarters and as per Govt. of India rules permitting one higher type of quarter on payment of three times license fee, he was allowed to retain the said quarter vide order dated 28.7.2005. Subsequently, on representation received from other employees, it was realized that they committed a mistake in granting him one type higher quarter. Said mistake has now been ratified by issuing orders dated 16.11.2005 & 10.2.2006. Applicant�s contention that he has been harassed by their action was controverted.