### Retrospective Cancellation of Government Accommodation Allotment Resulting in Civil Consequences Is Impermissible Where Headquarters Remain Unchanged

Respondent No. 1, a Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), was posted in Mumbai and allotted government residential accommodation.

On 26.09.2016, he was transferred to Chennai; however, his headquarters remained officially at Mumbai until 30.06.2017.

During his tenure in Chennai, he did not avail of House Rent Allowance (HRA) or government accommodation there.

The Appellants (Union of India) retrospectively cancelled his Mumbai allotment on 29.01.2018 (effective from 25.11.2016) and levied penal license fees and damages for unauthorized occupation.

The Writ Petitioner challenged these recovery orders in W.P. No. 17196 of 2020. A learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 29.05.2024, holding the occupation was not unauthorized.

The Union of India preferred this writ appeal alongside an application for condonation of a 345-day delay.

1. Whether the delay of 345 days in filing the appeal should be condoned in the interest of justice.

2. Whether a dispute regarding government accommodation for an ITAT member constitutes a "service matter" under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, thereby barring the High Court's writ jurisdiction.

3. Whether the retrospective cancellation of the allotment and subsequent levy of penal damages was legally sustainable when the officer's headquarters remained at the original station.

Principles of condonation of delay, focusing on "sufficient cause" and "bona fide procedural requirements" rather than intentional negligence.

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which mandates that service matters be first instituted before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation (CGGPRA) Rules, 2017, specifically Rule 2(y) regarding transfers, and Supplementary Rule (SR) 59 concerning the definition and location of headquarters.

Administrative law principle that penal orders imposing adverse civil consequences cannot ordinarily be applied retrospectively.

The Court first condoned the 345-day delay, noting it was caused by administrative formalities and seeking legal opinions from the Deputy Solicitor General, rather than deliberate inaction.

On the merits, the Bench rejected the Appellants’ contention that the transfer to Chennai automatically rendered the Mumbai occupation unauthorized under CGGPRA Rules. The Court emphasized that because the Respondent’s headquarters technically remained at Mumbai until 30.06.2017 and he drew his salary from there without claiming HRA in Chennai, his continued stay in the Mumbai quarter was legitimate under SR 59.

The Court reasoned that the cancellation order dated 29.01.2018, by operating retrospectively to 2016, unfairly imposed "adverse civil consequences" (penal damages) on an officer who had not acted in bad faith or violated the core objective of the housing rules.

The Court concluded that since the Respondent’s headquarters were at Mumbai during the disputed period and no dual benefits (HRA/Guest House) were claimed, the occupation was not "unauthorized". The retrospective cancellation of the allotment and the resulting recovery of license fees and damages were held to be unjustified and legally unsustainable.