HOUSE ACCOMODATION CASE CHANDIGARH CAT TRIBUNAL finds no reason for interfering in the executive order cancelling her Government accommodation.
PRITI MALHOTRA v. ADMINISTRATOR AND ORS.
The post discusses the original petition filed by the applicant, Priti Malhotra, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking to quash the impugned order dated 26.05.2020, 28.05.2020 and 04.08.02020, where the respondents rejected her claims to retain the accommodation provided by the government consequent to her re-appointment as the member of Dispute Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh. The applicant prayed that the protection/accrued rights granted under Rule 3(5) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 cannot be taken away by amending statutory provisions arbitrarily and that too when amended provisions are prospectively applicable.
Also Read- Tribunal refuses to interfere in house allotment rule amendments by Chandigarh
APPLICANT:
Mrs. Priti Malhotra
REPSONDENT:
- The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sector-6, Punjab Raj Bhawan, Chandigarh- 160 019.
- The Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh-160 009.
- The Secretary, House Allotment Committee, U.T. Secretariat, Sector-9, Chandigarh-160 009.
- The Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Plot No. 5B, Sector 19-B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 019.
CORUM:
Hon’ble Mrs. Ajanta Dayalan, Member (A)
Also Read- CAT seeks status of alternative housing for GMCH-32 nurses
FACTS:
The applicant was initially appointed as Member (Women) of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh on whole time basis for a period of five years. She assumed charge on 27.03.2015 and completed her tenure on 26.03.2020. She was re-appointed on the same post on a whole time basis. The applicant was allotted house No. 8/2542, Sector 27, Chandigarh vide allotment order dated 09.09.2015. She is continuing to occupy this house. The applicant has also stated that she is not having any property or house in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula in her own name or in the name of her spouse or dependent children. It is against rejection of her request for continuation of this accommodation subsequent to her re-appointment that the applicant has approached this Tribunal. A Notification was issued on 12.03.2020 by Chandigarh Administration amending the Allotment Rules, 1996. Vide this amendment, the rate of penal rent has been enhanced from 50 times the normal license fee to 100 times of the normal license fee for the first three months’ over-stay and 200 times from the fourth month onwards till actual vacation. The applicant is continuing on her post as Member (Women) of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT Chandigarh right from 27.03.2015 onwards and was allotted official accommodation in that capacity. She completed her first five-year term on 26.03.2020 and was re-appointed in the same capacity w.e.f. 27.03.2020 without even a day’s break.
Also Read- central administrative tribunal – CAT
ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT:
It was contended by the counsel for the applicant that she has been continuously holding the post since 2015 and the terms and conditions of her service cannot now be varied to her disadvantage in terms of Rule 3 of the governing rules.
Rule 3 states that, “The terms and conditions of the service of the President and members of the District Forum shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their tenure of Office.”
The counsel for the applicant specifically argued that the applicant continues to hold the post of Member, District Forum right from 2015 without even a day’s break and as such, no change in allotment of Government accommodation can be made in her case as her terms and conditions of service remain the same as in her earlier tenure in office.
In the case of Padma Pandey, the cancellation order was served on 23.09.2019, which was much beyond the completion of her tenure, on 13.01.2019. Later, Padma Pandey was allowed to retain her government accommodation on the consideration of factum of re-appointment as continued service on the same post. Thus, drawing similarity of her case with the case of Padma Pandey, the applicant has claimed the same treatment. The applicant has also quoted some other cases where respondents have allowed retention of accommodation on their re- appointment. In view of all above, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned orders issued by the Estate Office cancelling her accommodation and levying the penal rent at the rates given in Notification dated 12.03.2020.
Also Read- Amarjit Singh v. Chandigarh Administration … – CaseMine
ARGUMENTS BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:
The counsel for the respondents contested the claims of the applicant saying that the key words are terms and conditions of service of appointment of the applicant. These words can mean and cover only those terms and conditions that are specified in the appointment letter or in Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. There is no such condition or term as to allotment of house in the appointment order or in the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. The terms and conditions do not cover the allotment of the house.
The counsel has further averred that the allotment of Government accommodation is governed by Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 as amended from time to time. Thus, as per her own declaration, she is bound by amended Rules which call for discontinuance of allotment to Member or President of District Consumer
Forum. Therefore, for her to say now that there cannot be any change whatsoever in her allotment, being a term and condition of service, is wrong in the face of her own declaration.
It was further averred that discontinuance of allotment of houses to Member or President of District Consumer Forum, being a policy decision of the respondents and having a rationale to the objective to be achieved, cannot be interfered by this Tribunal. There is no right vested in the applicant for allotment of house. At best, it was a concession granted unilaterally by the employer and has thereafter been withdrawn unilaterally.
It was further stated that the applicant had not challenged the Notification of July 2019 discontinuing allotment of house to the President and Members of District Consumer Forum, and she is only trying to interpret it in her own way.
The respondents have further stated that the applicant is attempting to seek equity by naming three other persons, namely, Padma Pandey, Rajan Dewan and Surjeet Kaur. However, all these persons were re-appointed prior to the Notification which is not the case with the applicant as she is re-appointed after this Notification came into effect. The respondents have pointed out that the applicant has been re-appointed vide order dated 31.12.2019 (and that too w.e.f. 27.03.2020), that is after the Notification of 18-31/07/2019 and as such, she is to be governed by this Notification. The respondents have further averred that
the accommodation provided by the employer is only a lucrative perk and does not create any vested right in the applicant to seek continuance of such right. The applicant cannot put to question the policy decision of the Government. The applicant has already given declaration to abide by the rules as amended from time to time and as such, amendments as and when made have to be applied to the applicant.
Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal – Chandigarh
Central Administrative Tribunal … vs Chandigarh Administration … on 16 September, 2011
JUDGEMENT:
The court was of the opinion that appointment orders dated 24.03.2015 and 31.12.2019 do not contain any condition regarding allotment of Government accommodation to the applicant. In fact, letter of appointment of 2015 does specifically state other conditions of service in detail. In particular, it states that she will receive consolidated honorarium of Rs. 18,000/- p.m., conveyance allowance of Rs. 3000/- p.m. and reimbursement of her own mobile phone bill up to Rs. 1000/- p.m. or actual whichever is less. It also states that she will be entitled to other facilities as prescribed in Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 as amended from time to time. Her present appointment letter of December 2019 does not indicate even these terms and just states that she has been re-appointed as Member, District Forum on whole time basis w.e.f. 27.03.2020 for a period of five years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier. Thus, it is clear that the appointment order of the applicant does not contain any specific condition regarding allotment of Government accommodation.
Thus, it is clear that these terms and conditions do not include allotment of Government accommodation to the President and Members. Besides salary/consolidated honorarium, the President and Members are entitled to only travelling allowance and daily allowance and honorarium if sitting on part-time basis. Rule 3 states that the terms and conditions of service “shall not be varied to their disadvantage during their tenure of Office”. However, as already observed, the terms and conditions specified in the Rules do not at all mention anything about Government accommodation. This clause will obviously be relevant for only those terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the Rules.
As this Rule does not specifically mention allotment of Government accommodation as part of terms and conditions, the sub-clause (5) relating to variation to disadvantage cannot be applied to allotment of Government accommodation. Thus, the applicant cannot claim that the non-retention of Government accommodation is a variation in her terms and conditions of service to her disadvantage.
Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal Website
The court also pointed out that appointment of the applicant is not in continuation. Re-appointment is different from continuation as re-appointment involves going through a process of selection resulting in fresh appointment. On the other hand, continuation is merely a question of continuing the person already holding the post. The Consumer Protection Act as well as the Rules do not provide for continuation. They only provide for appointment and re-appointment of President and Members.
The wording that terms and conditions cannot be varied to their disadvantage “during their tenure of Office” would mean tenure of the current term of office and not the next terms on re-appointment.
All these re-appointments, in the case of Padma Pandey, Rajan Dewan and Surjeet Kaur, were found to be prior to date of issue of Notification amending the Allotment Rules. As against this, the re-appointment of all other three cases quoted by the applicant was with effect from 2018 and in one case with effect from January 2019 i.e. prior to issuance of the Notification of July 2019. On the other hand, the applicant has been re-appointed in her present post w.e.f. March 2020 – that is after issuance of Notification dated July 2019. Thus, there is a clear differentiation between her case and other cases quoted by her. She is obviously to be governed by the Notification of July 2019. This is also as per the declaration given by her at the time of allotment of the house to her.
The July 2019 amendment to Rules is a general amendment and reflects a policy
decision taken by the Government and it is not for this Tribunal to interfere in the Policy decisions of the Government. Besides, the applicant has not even challenged this Amendment Notification dated 18/31.7.2019. No relief can be given to her without setting aside or modification of this Notification.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to Government accommodation as she has
no vested right for claiming it and the same is not part of her appointment letter or terms and conditions of her service as provided in the relevant Rules. As such, there are no reason for interfering in the executive order cancelling her Government accommodation.
Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal – Chandigarh
Nishant Thakur vs Chandigarh Administration on 7 February, 2017
The Original Application stands dismissed.
This post is written by Gopika Thakur.
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.
More on 99888-17966
