J&K Public Premises Act | Employee's Right To Retain Govt Accommodation Limited To One Month Post-Retirement: High Court Upholds Demand Of Rent

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has made it clear that in terms of J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1988, a Govt. employee on his retirement can retain govt. accommodation for a period of one month and thereafter, he has no right whatsoever to retain the same.Thus allowing the writ petition moved by the Estates Department and setting aside an order passed by Sessions Court that allowed a retired government employee to indefinitely retain government accommodation, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,“From a bare perusal of the regulations framed by the Government and also the provisions of Civil Services Regulation, it is manifestly clear that a Govt. employee on his retirement can retain govt. accommodation for a period of one month and thereafter, he has no right whatsoever to retain the same”.In the instant case Respondent No. 1, a former government employee, was allotted a government quarter until April 2004, with permission to retain it until his retirement in Feb. 2011. Despite regulations, he didn't vacate after retirement, prompting an eviction notice.In response, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition leading to a High Court order on 14.03.2012, directing a four-month occupation and rent payment. However, the petitioner failed to deposit rent arrears as directed.A subsequent rent notice, based on a government order, led to a legal challenge by Respondent No. 1 in terms of an appeal under Section 12 of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 resulting in an interim order from the District Judge, Jammu, on 14.06.2012 whereby the respondents appeal came to be allowed. It was this order was being assailed through the instant petition.Contesting the order of the Principal District Judge, Jammu the petitioners argued that it had overturned the earlier High Court judgment which had permitted the respondent a four-month occupation, post which eviction was mandated, coupled with rent payment obligations.The petitioners contended that the Principal District Judge erred in not recognizing the confined scope of powers under Section 12 of the J&K Public Premises Act, 1988 as these powers should only extend to ensuring due process and adherence to the Act's provisions and not in violation or derogation of established legal frameworks.Finding it a peculiar case where the Principal District Judge, Jammu by virtue of order impugned dated 31.10.2013 had set aside the judgment of the higher court i.e., High Court, whereby, the Court had permitted the respondent to remain in occupation for a period of four months from the date of order and vacate the same thereafter Justice Nargal observed,“A bare perusal of the judgment passed by the appellate court reveals that the appellate court has not only exceeded its jurisdiction by upsetting the order passed by the higher court i.e., High Court but has also issued directions by quashing the impugned communication dated 24.4.2012, as if, the appellate court is exercising the power as a writ court exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.Deliberating on the scope of powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1988 against the rent notice dated 24.4.2012 the court said that the notice was sent to respondent No. 1, in line with the previous judgment and hence this communication was not an eviction order but a notice urging payment, indicating that legal proceedings would follow if ignored. “The respondent No. 1 instead of complying with the directions issued by the Dy. Director Estates, Jammu has rushed to the appellate court and filed the appeal on false and flimsy grounds after having availed the remedy before this Court”, the court recorded.Criticising this move as an abuse of the appellate process, the court further added that the Principal District Judge had exceeded its jurisdiction by annulling the 24.4.2012 communication and hence legally unsustainable.“The learned Principal District Judge, Jammu could not have exercised the jurisdiction in the instant case where a superior court has already taken cognizance of the matter and has issued directions. The very initiation of proceedings by the learned Principal District Judge, Jammu in the instant case by invoking the powers under Section 12 of the Act of 1988 is nullity”, Justice Nargal remarked.Observing that the order impugned if permitted to remain as it is and operative would have far-reaching consequences as it would vest a right in respondent No. 1 to retain the Govt. accommodation for all times to come the court reasoned,“The right of the respondent no. 1 to enjoy the Govt. accommodation ceased with his retirement from service and, therefore, he does not possess any right to keep govt. accommodation with him for all times to come and even after his retirement, when under rules he can retain govt. accommodation only for a period of one month after his retirement and thereafter, the accommodation is deemed to have been...

J&K Public Premises Act | Employee's Right To Retain Govt Accommodation Limited To One Month Post-Retirement: High Court Upholds Demand Of Rent

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

J&K Public Premises Act | Employee's Right To Retain Govt Accommodation Limited To One Month Post-Retirement: High Court Upholds Demand Of Rent

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers