(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in the proceedings Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to send the pension proposals to the 5th respondent to sanction the pension on the date of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2010 to the petitioner.)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in the proceedings Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to send the pension proposals to the 5th respondent to sanction the pension on the date of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2010 to the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that this petitioner was worked as an Assistant Director of Horticulture at Manikandam Union in Trichy District and he had put up 32 years of service as on 30.06.2010.
3. This petitioner has come forward by saying that he was residing in Government rental quarters in Door No.DD3, 1st Floor, Tamil Nadu Housing Unit, Sengulam Colony, Trichy-20. In the year 2000, he was transferred to Karur and relieved from duty on 15.12.2000 and hence he requested the fourth respondent herein to allow him to stay in the same quarters with his family till the end of the academic year due to reason of education and welfare of his children.
4. He has also further states that but the fourth respondent namely Executive Engineer, Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Trichy-20 has directed the petitioner to vacate the premises from 01.06.2001. Therefore, this petitioner was forced to file a civil suit in O.S.No.1177 of 2002 before the learned District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli and he has also moved an application for an interim injunction in I.A.No.816 of 2001 and the said Court was granted injunction till 31.12.2001 and subsequently the interim orders are made absolute. Finally a decree for permanent injunction was granted on 10.03.2008 by the trial Court. The said Court after trial, had granted decree for permanent injunction. But, the respondents 3 and 4 have not filed any appeal till date and hence the order of the learned District Munsif is executable in all aspects and has became final.
5. The petitioner also states that when he decided to go on voluntary retirement on 31.03.2009 and hence the petitioner was requested the fourth respondent to accept the possession and handed over the key of the said premises, but the second respondent namely the Director of Horticulture, Chepauk, Chennai has compelled him to withdraw the suit and then only the key of the said premises would be accepted. Therefore, this petitioner has sent the key of the premises by registered post with acknowledgement due on 20.01.2009 and the same was accepted and the possession was taken by the fourth respondent. He further states that he has paid the monthly rent regularly which were duly deducted from his salary till 31.12.2008 and the fourth respondent accepted the said monthly rent without any protest or objections.
6. All in sudden, the fourth respondent issued the present impugned proceedings in Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 demanding him to pay a huge amount of Rs.6,18,737/- as penal rental amount arrears. Therefore, the fourth respondent has withheld material and vital details relating to the final outcome of the suit in O.S.No.1177 of 2001 and judgment dated 10.03.2008.
7. The impugned order dated 26.02.2009 issued by the fourth respondent is too vague and not clear with specific calculation about the amount has been arrived at by spelling out the relevant Rules and Regulations.
8. The petitioner also states that he worked under the control of the respondents 1 and 2 and they are the competent authority to send the pension proposals so as to enable the petitioner to get the Pensionary benefits and the fifth respondent is the final authority for sanctioning of pensionary benefits. But due to the impugned order dated 26.02.2009 issued by the fourth respondent, the petitioner s pension proposals are withheld and kept pending. After receipt of the impugned orders, this petitioner has approached all the respondents with a request to recall or cancel the impugned orders, but his request is not considered. Therefore, he filed the above writ petition for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 4th respondent in the proceedings Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 and quash the same as null and void and consequently direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to send the pension proposals to the 5th respondent to sanction the pension on the date of superannuation i.e. on 30.06.2010 to the petitioner, by invoking the jurisdiction and challenging the said impugned order dated 26.02.2009 on various grounds.
9. This petitioner further states that he raised the ground by saying that the impugned order issued by the fourth respondent without spell out the rules and regulations is not sound principle to collect heavy amount from the poor occupier of the Government Quarters. He also states that the suit in O.S.No.1177 of 2001 was decreed on 10.03.2008 and hence the demand of enhanced amount by way of damages is not available in the eye of law.
10. When the petitioner s monthly rental due was deducted from his salary which were duly accepted without any protest till 31.12.2008 by the fourth respondent and as such there was no arrears payable to the fourth respondent by the petitioner.
11. The petitioner also states that the statement of the fourth respondent is that there was an arrears and he should pay a total amount of Rs.6,18,737/-, but the petitioner states that there was no rental arrears from 01.01.2001 to 08.01.2009 and the petitioner also states that the impugned demand made by the fourth respondent is abnormal and made only to harass, humiliate and to withhold the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by way of punishment and hence the impugned orders of the fourth respondent is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The fourth respondent is to deprive his legitimate right to get the pensionary benefits, which is against the Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. He has also stated that the action of the fourth respondent in the impugned notice is without jurisdiction, authority, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the Principle of Natural justice. Hence, he sought for in the writ petition to set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2009 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 and 2 to sent the pension proposals to the fifth respondent to sanction the pension on the date of superannuation i.e. from 30.06.2010 to the petitioner.
12. The petitioner also states that he has also approached this Court an early occasion filed a writ petition in WP(MD)No.3062 of 2011 for issuance of the Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents in the said writ petition to consider the petitioner s representation dated 15.02.2011. Hence, this petition has been filed for the above prayer.
13. Counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent that the calculations of the amount and issuance of the impugned order dated 26.02.2009 is fully correct and the rental calculations are very accurate without any mistake and error as per the rules and regulations of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is neither legal nor valid and it cannot be accepted without paying the entire due amount of Rs.7,14,377/-. The fourth respondent also states that the petitioner occupied the said house beyond the permitted period i.e. 31.05.2001 inspite of several demands from his office for vacating the said house. But, this petitioner being the Government Employee non-co-operated and refused to deliver the house to their department. Therefore, the petitioner was requested to the respondents by letter dated 21.06.2001, 12.07.2001, 02.11.2001 and 20.11.2001, the fourth respondent department was also sought the Police help through the Police Commissioner, Tiruchy Office.
14. The fourth respondent also states that this petitioner has unnecessarily filed this petition and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has allotted the house to this petitioner on 31.01.2000 and he has taken possession by the said house till 26.02.2009 and he had permitted to hold the house from 31.03.2000 till 31.03.2005 as per the permission letter dated 23.02.2001. The said submissions was mentioned by the fourth respondent in his counter in para-23.
15. The fourth respondent also states that this petitioner has occupied this house for 16 months at the concessional and allowed rate of rent and further submitted from 01.06.2001 to 26.02.2009 till vacating the house for total 93 months, economical higher rate of rent was fixed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The concessional rate of rent has eligible as long as this petitioner is working at Trichy office. After his transfer to other places including Karur that this petitioner has to pay the higher rate of economical rent and not eligible for the said concessional rate of rent as per the above rules.
16. When the fourth respondent has issued notice to the petitioner, it is stated in his letter dated 31.01.2000 in Para No.12 and 13 has given as follows:
TAMIL
17. The respondent also calculated the rent which comes Rs.7,14,377/- and he has also states that the said amount has arrived with careful calculations legally and morally and as alleged by the petitioner that there is no evil intention or partial attitude towards this petitioner from their Department. Therefore, the fourth respondent has sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
18. Heard Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Guru, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
19. Admittedly, the petitioner was employed as an Assistant Director of Horticulture at Manikandam Union, Trichy and put up more than 32 years of service till his superannuation on 30.06.2010. The petitioner was allotted the rental premises at Door No.DD3, 1st Floor, Tamil Nadu Housing Unit, Sengulam Colony, Trichy-20 and in the year 2000, he was transferred to Karur and relieved from duty on 15.12.2000.
20. When the petitioner submitted his voluntary retirement on 31.03.2009, but the second respondent were compelled the petitioner to withdraw the suit then only they received key of the house premises.
21. It clearly shows that the second respondent, who is the Head of the Department has compelled the petitioner for withdrawal of the suit and they said then only they received the key of the house premises. This allegation was denied by the respondents, particularly the second respondent, who is the Head of the Department. Therefore, this assumes that the second respondent has compelled the petitioner for withdrawing the suit. Therefore, it is clear that when the petitioner was tendered the key and ready to vacate the rental premises, but the respondents themselves have not ready to receive the same, but they compelled the petitioner to withdraw the civil suit. Apart from this, it is made clear that after locking the house, the petitioner also attempted to hand over the key to the respondents, but the same was not received for the reasons best known to them.
22. As per the averments made by the writ petitioner as well as the counter affidavit, it is made clear that as per the Government rules, the rent amount was deducted from the petitioner s salary from 01.01.2000 to 30.11.2008 and this petitioner also ready to hand over the said house by giving the house key and also wanted to go on voluntary retirement service on the ground of his illness. In the month of November 2008 itself, he has vacated the above quarters and ready to hand over the possession of the said house to the officers concerned, but the officers did not accept to get House Key from the petitioner. Therefore, this petitioner has sent the house key through the Registered Post on 20.01.2009 itself. Therefore, it is clear that on 20.01.2009 onwards the petitioner was not in occupation of the said house.
23. On fair reading of the impugned order for the occupation of the premises by the petitioner from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2008, the respondents have demanded the fine amount for over staying in the house, but the counter says in para-27 that the petitioner has to pay the total arrears of rent a sum of Rs.7,14,377/- and the said amount has arrived with careful calculations legally and morally. In para-28 in the counter it is stated that the demanding the actual arrears of rent from this petitioner being the occupier of a house is no violation of articles 14, 16, 21 and 300 as stated by the petitioner. But, the impugned order in para-3 it is stated as follows:-
TAMIL
24. In the counter, there was no whisper about the penal rental, but the counter says that it is actual arrears of rent from 2001-2008. Therefore, the order itself is totally wrong without proper verification. On the ground that this petitioner s rental amount was deducted from his salary from 01.01.2000 to 30.11.2008 (tenancy period) for the above quarters without verifying the records whether the said amount was deducted from the salary of the petitioner from 01.01.2000 to 30.11.2008, the present impugned order has been passed by saying that it is a penal rental amount in the impugned order.
25. As per the G.O.No.986 (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) dated 18.07.1986 when the employee is residing in the Government quarters House, if the Government Employees are shifted to else other place, viewing the Family Situation and Children s Education, the same Government Servants are permitted to stay at the same (present) Government Quarters. But, the respondents miserably failed to consider and by deviating the above G.O. and without obeying the above mentioned Court order, the fourth respondent has demanded the huge amount of Rs.6,18,737/- from the petitioner as a penal interest of the rent from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2008 in unauthorised occupation.
26. It is also made clear that for the period from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2008, the rent amount for the above Government quarters house, the rental amount were recovered from the salary of the petitioner and also the said amount was sent to Trichy Housing Board Office properly. But without deduction of the above rental amount already deducted from his salary, the Subordinate Officer, viz. Executive Engineer of Trichy Housing Unit Office has not mentioned about any such Penal Rent and by taking vengeance motive only this impugned order has been passed and demanded to pay the alleged Penal Rent Amount.
27. In my considered view that the fourth respondent while passing the impugned order, it is stated that for the penal rent amount for the unauthorised occupation of the house and quarters, the petitioner has to pay the amount a sum of Rs.6,18,737/- from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2008. But, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the arrears of rental amount for the period of 93 months as per the monthly rent (8910X93) by total arrears of rent is Rs.7,14,377/-, but there was no mentioning about the penal rental amount in the counter affidavit. Therefore, thus would made clear that the fourth respondent has made wrong calculation and the petitioner has paid the monthly rent from 01.06.2001 to 31.08.2008 from his salary, which was deducted and sent to the fourth respondent office and passed the present impugned order, which is totally non application of mind and the against the principles of natural justice on the part of the respondents particularly the fourth respondent herein.
28. It is my consider opinion, in fact the fourth respondent Housing Board has issued the present impugned order but what prevented the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps for sending the proposal to the fifth respondent for sanctioning the pension to the petitioner, since the petitioner had completed his 32 years of service in the respondents 1 and 2 without any remark. Apart from the issuance of the impugned order by the fourth respondent only for recovery of the penal rental amount and the fourth respondent also sought for the action to be taken by the respondents for recover the amount from the petitioner, but pursuant to the impugned order as on date, there was no order issued by the petitioner, but kept the proposal for pension to the petitioner from 30.06.2010.
29. It is most unfortunate case that when the petitioner after putting up 32 years of service in the respondent Department and after retirement of his service on 30.06.2010 and even after lapse of 6 years 2 months i.e. 74 months, the respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any steps to sent the pension proposal to the fifth respondent for pension on the date of superannuation, i.e. on 30.06.2010. Therefore, in my view that this impugned order has passed against the law and the principles of natural justice.
30. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 26.02.2009 must go since the impugned order has been passed without proper verification of the records about the payment of the rent by the petitioner from his salary and passed against the order of G.O.No.986 (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) dated 18.07.1986. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and in the interest of just and necessary to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps for sending the proposal to the fifth respondent for pension to the petitioner.
31. In the result, I am inclined to pass the following orders:
(a) the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings Letter No.C2/187/01 dated 26.02.2009 passed by the fourth respondent and the same is quashed.
(b) the respondents 1 and 2 to take immediate steps to send the pension proposals of the petitioner to the fifth respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(c) thereafter, the fifth respondent is hereby directed to sanction the pension from the date of superannuation of the petitioner i.e. 30.06.2010 and sanction the said pension and pay the arrears with 6% of the interest within a period of four weeks and continue to pay the pension on the every month to the petitioner.
32. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.