Unauthorized occupation not established where retention was officially permitted and payments received.

The applicant, P. Rama Kishore, joined as an auditor on January 15, 2002, and was promoted to Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) on December 28, 2007.

He was transferred from CDA, Secunderabad (Respondent No. 3) to AO AGE (I), Yeddumylaram, on November 3, 2014.

Upon transfer, he requested to retain his government quarter (No. C-04) in Secunderabad due to his children's education and medical needs, a request initially granted for varying periods until July 31, 2016, with increasing license fees.

The applicant was repatriated to the office of Respondent No. 3 on April 5, 2017.

The applicant contends that had he been repatriated immediately after completing his tenure at Yeddumylaram on November 2, 2016, he would have continued in the same quarter, avoiding potential recovery proceedings.

He further states that his predecessors and successors were repatriated before completing their two-year tenures, unlike him.

Relying on an alleged assurance from Respondent No. 3, the applicant continued occupying the quarter until his repatriation.

In December 2017, Respondent No. 3 informed the applicant that the Headquarters (Respondent No. 2) directed the recovery of "damage rent" totaling Rs. 7,04,457/-, citing no provision for retention beyond six months after transfer.

The applicant's subsequent representation in February 2018 to drop the recovery proceedings was turned down by the Ministry of Defence (Respondent No. 1) in February 2021.

Consequently, an order dated January 5, 2021, directed Respondent No. 3 to recover Rs. 5,70,888/- as damage rent for "unauthorized retention".

The respondents argue that retention beyond the permissible period, typically two months with normal license fee and six additional months with double fee, constitutes unauthorized occupation.

They deny any assurance beyond the official permissions granted and state that the delay in responding to the applicant's requests was due to administrative processes involving multiple authorities.

They also contest the relevance of vacant quarters to the issue of unauthorized occupation.

Whether the applicant's occupation of Quarter No. C-04 in Secunderabad from November 3, 2014, to April 6, 2017, was "unauthorised occupation" as per Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971?

Whether the recovery of Rs. 5,70,888/- from the applicant as damage rent is legal and justified?

Whether the respondents' action in not repatriating the applicant earlier and subsequently attempting to recover damage rent violates principles of natural justice and Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India?

The court primarily considered Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the application was filed.

It referred to Sub-Rule (2)(iv) of Rule 9 and Rule 20 of the Allotment of Govt. Residences (DAD Pool) Rules, 1986, which outline periods for retaining government accommodation upon transfer and provisions for charging damages for overstayal.

The relevant part of Rule 20, specifically the proviso allowing retention for "special cases" on payment of twice the standard license fee for up to six months, and on medical/educational grounds for up to four additional months with increased fees, was also considered.

The definition of "unauthorised occupation" under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, was cited to determine the nature of the applicant's occupancy.

DoPT OM No.28034/6/2002/Estt.(A), dated January 11, 2002, regarding the timeline for disposing of representations, was noted by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's occupation of the quarter from November 1, 2014, to July 31, 2016, was authorised because the department itself had granted permission for retention, albeit with varying license fees, and the official statement presented by the respondents confirmed this.

This period cannot be termed "unauthorised occupation" under Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

The internal correspondence from the CDA office (Respondent No. 3) to CGDA (Respondent No. 2) consistently recommended the applicant's case for retention, even referring to "extreme compassionate grounds as a special case" and acknowledging that extension was granted up to April 6, 2017.

The fact that the applicant paid the stipulated fees during these periods, and the department generated revenue, was also considered.

The Tribunal highlighted the inconsistencies in the stated recovery amounts and the belated communication of the damage rent.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the CDA's own "Statement of Case" to the CGDA indicated that "extension upto 06.04.2017 has been accorded".

Furthermore, the applicant's transfer location, Yeddumylaram, was clarified to be within the same Urban Agglomeration as Hyderabad for HRA purposes, implying less justification for mandatory vacation.

The delay in processing the applicant's representation from February 2018 to February 2021 was also mentioned.

Given the official permissions and the department's consistent sympathetic consideration of the applicant's case, terming the occupation "unauthorised" was inconsistent with the facts.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's occupation of the quarters was not "unauthorised occupation".

The interim order dated February 24, 2021, which stayed the proposed recovery, is revoked.

The Tribunal directed that the amount to be paid/recovered from the applicant for the period from November 1, 2014, to July 31, 2016, shall strictly adhere to the rates outlined in the statement furnished by the respondents on January 6, 2026.

For the subsequent period from August 1, 2016, until April 6, 2017, the applicant shall be charged as per Para (2) under Rule (20) read with Rule 23 of the Allotment of Government Residences (DAD Pool) Rules, 1986.

No costs were awarded.