Unauthorised occupation of government quarters requires proper eviction procedure, not just penal rent recovery.

The applicant, Satyendra Kumar, initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sewak, was promoted to Sorting Assistant.

In April 2004, he was allotted Type-I quarter No. Postal/Type-1/25.

In 2018-2019, an administrative decision was made to upgrade Type-I quarters (including the applicant's) to Type-III due to a shortage of Type-III quarters.

Despite several reminders between December 2019 and July 2021, the applicant did not vacate his existing quarter.

On October 7, 2021, he was allotted Type-II quarter No. P-II/01, which he claimed was not in a habitable condition, prompting him to send representations on October 21, 2021, January 19, 2022, and April 11, 2022, for its renovation.

The respondent No. 5 also sent a letter on April 27/28, 2022, for necessary action regarding the repair of the newly allotted quarter.

However, respondent No. 5 issued an order dated May 25, 2022, treating the applicant's occupation of his earlier quarter as unauthorized since October 2020 and assessing a damage rent of Rs. 14,52,400/- for Type-III quarter occupation from October 2020 to May 2022.

The applicant vacated quarter No. 25 Type-I and took possession of quarter No. 01 Type-II on June 21, 2022.

He had not been paid HRA during the period.

Whether the impugned orders dated May 25, 2022, September 2, 2022, and September 19, 2022, ordering the recovery of damage rent amounting to Rs. 14,52,400/-, should be quashed and set aside.

Whether the applicant's occupation of Quarter No. Type-I/25 (renovated Type-III/19) from October 16, 2020, to May 2022 should be treated as just, authorized, and proper.

Whether the respondents should be directed to refund the amount already recovered towards damage rent from the applicant's salary.

The court primarily applied the principle that an employee's occupation of a quarter, initially allotted by the employer, cannot be deemed unauthorized if the employer fails to provide an inhabitable alternative accommodation, especially when the initial allotment has not been cancelled.

The court also considered the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, which restricted the applicant's ability to find alternative housing.

The court implicitly referred to the need for due process, noting that if the occupation were unauthorized, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, or disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated.

The court noted that the applicant's initial occupation of Quarter No. 25 Type-I (later Type-III/19) was based on a valid allotment made in 2003 and was never void ab initio.

Despite repeated reminders to vacate, the respondents failed to provide a habitable alternative accommodation; the newly allotted Quarter No. 01 Type-II required significant repairs, as evidenced by the applicant's letters and the Assistant Director-II's communication to the Assistant Engineer (Civil).

The court found no evidence in the various correspondences that the applicant's occupation was ever officially treated as unauthorized before the impugned order.

Furthermore, the applicant's failure to vacate was influenced by the national COVID-19 pandemic and his inability to secure rented accommodation.

Since the applicant was not paid HRA, the question of unauthorized occupancy was further weakened.

The court deemed the department's failure to ensure an inhabitable alternative accommodation a lapse on their part.

Therefore, the applicant could not be held responsible or penalized with damage rent.

The judgment emphasized that if the occupation was truly unauthorized, the appropriate legal recourse under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971, or disciplinary proceedings should have been pursued, which was not done.

The O.A. was allowed, and the impugned orders dated May 25, 2022, September 2, 2022, and September 19, 2022, were quashed and set aside.

The court directed that if any amount had been recovered from the applicant's salary, it should be refunded with simple interest @ 8% per annum within 60 days from the submission of the certified copy of the order.