Retrospective Acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Cannot Retroactively Categorize Lawful Occupation of University Accommodation as Unauthorized Overstay.

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at JNU since 1988, was granted Extraordinary Leave (EOL) without pay starting July 3, 2012, to serve as a founding member of Shiv Nadar University (SNU).

JNU issued an Office Order on April 3, 2012, permitting her to retain university accommodation during her EOL as per Rule 10.2 of the JNU House Allotment Rules.

In June 2017, the University accepted the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement with retrospective effect from July 3, 2012.

She vacated the premises on September 29, 2017.

Subsequently, the respondent issued demands (dated August 5, 2022, and April 11, 2023) seeking INR 32,97,814 as penal rent, arguing that her retrospective retirement rendered her occupation unauthorized.

The Court applied Rule 10.2(vii) of the JNU House Allotment Rules, which expressly permits an employee to retain university accommodation for the duration of a contract, assignment, or EOL.

It further interpreted Rule 10.4, which mandates penal rent at double the market rate only for overstaying beyond permissible limits without prior approval.

The Court also relied on the principle of vested rights, holding that an administrative act given retrospective effect cannot prejudice or alter a right (to accommodation) that was lawfully enjoyed under existing orders.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner's stay was specifically authorized by the Office Order dated April 3, 2012, which granted her permission to occupy the residence during her EOL.

Under Rule 10.2(vii), she had a valid legal right to occupy the premises until July 2, 2017.

The Court found that the university could not use the "fiction" of retrospective retirement to retroactively categorize her stay as "unauthorized" under Rule 10.4.

Regarding the HRA received from SNU, the Court noted that the impugned demand failed to show any rule where such acceptance would invalidate the authorization granted under the housing rules.

Since the occupation was "lawful when enjoyed," it could not be transformed into a violation by a subsequent administrative act.

The Court set aside the Office Orders dated August 5, 2022, and April 11, 2023. The petition was allowed, and the demand for INR 32,97,814 was quashed.