Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11725 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Digambar Kanhar …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Satyajit Behera, Adv. Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-24.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-16.05.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is challenging the order dated 04.04.2023, passed by the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, directing recovery of house rent, on the ground that it violates the Finance Department Resolution dated 15th December, 2010. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 14 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 (i) The Petitioner was serving as a Peon in the office of the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, when he was allotted a Government quarter in the Agency Colony at Phulbani, at a monthly rent of ₹290, in accordance with the office order dated 07 August 2014 issued by the Project Administrator. (ii) However, the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, vide Letter No. 09 dated 04 January 2019, issued a notice to the Petitioner directing him to vacate the said government quarter and cancelled the earlier allotment order issued in his favour. (iii) Thereafter, the Petitioner was allotted Quarter No. 8 at Nadikhandi Sahi, as per Office Order No. 794 dated 20 June 2020, issued by the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, with the monthly house rent fixed at ₹140. (iv) By Office Order dated 13 July 2020, the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, again issued an order cancelling the initial quarter allotment. Along with the cancellation, a flat licence fee, standard licence fee, and penal licence fee totalling ₹12,200 were imposed on the petitioner. (v) As the petitioner had still not vacated the quarter, the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, issued Letter No. 923 dated 22 July 2020, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and deposit the outstanding dues. The letter stated that an amount of ₹1,64,090 towards arrear house rent and ₹12,200 Page 2 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 towards penal licence fee was payable within seven days, failing which the dues would be recovered from the petitioner’s salary in instalments. (vi) Aggrieved by the orders of the authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court under W.P.(C) No. 16458 of 2020. (vii) By order dated 20 July 2020, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation to the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, within two weeks from the date of the order. Upon receipt of such representation along with a copy of the order the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani was directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within four weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. (viii) Upon receipt of the representation dated 29 July 2020 and pursuant to this Court’s order, the representation was disposed of on 20 August 2020. The petitioner was permitted to retain the quarter until 20 September 2020 and was directed to vacate the quarter within the stipulated period without fail. A copy of the order was served on the Petitioner on 20 August 2020. (ix) Subsequently, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 24425 of 2020 before this
Decision
Court. This Court disposed of the petition, directing the Petitioner to approach the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani, for a decision in accordance with the Finance Department notification dated 15 December 2010, without expressing any opinion on the merits or applicability of the notification. Page 3 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 (x) On 8 August 2022, the matter was reconsidered, the notification and the petitioner’s submissions were examined, and after reviewing paragraph 5 of the Government Resolution, the licence fees and rent were fixed. The quarter was cancelled on 4 January 2019, and the petitioner vacated the quarter on 1 March 2021. (xi) Licence fees for the period from 1 February 2019 to December 2019 were calculated at ₹12,200 per month for 11 months, amounting to ₹1,34,200. For the period from January 2020 to December 2020, the fees at the same monthly rate for 12 months amounted to ₹1,46,400. For January 2021 to February 2021, the fees for 2 months amounted to ₹24,400. The total arrear licence fees due thus amounted to ₹3,05,000. Out of this, ₹70,000 has already been recovered, leaving a balance of ₹2,35,000 outstanding. The office issued a notice to the petitioner on 4 April 2023, demanding payment of the arrear licence fees. (xii) Aggrieved by the imposition of penal licence fees and finding no alternative and efficacious remedy available, the petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The Petitioner submitted that the Project Administrator unilaterally imposed penal rent without following the Finance Department Resolution dated 15 December 2010. As a Class-IV employee, the Page 4 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 Petitioner was exempt from penal house rent, especially since he was served notice to vacate the quarter during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the imposition of penal rent was illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. (ii) The Petitioner submitted that the Finance Department Resolution dated 15 December 2010 prescribes a flat licence fee of ₹290 per month for Type-IV quarters in Odisha, excluding Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. He was allotted a quarter with this fee. However, the Project Administrator wrongly calculated licence fees from 4 January 2019 to 28 February 2021 instead of from 1 July 2020 to 28 February 2021, violating the resolution. Moreover, instead of charging ₹290 monthly, the Project Administrator imposed penal fees of ₹2,440 multiplied fivefold, which the Petitioner contends is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. The earlier allotment cancelled from 4 January 2019 was superseded by the re-allotment on 20 June 2020, followed by the direction to vacate on 13 July 2020. (iii) The Petitioner submitted that although the order for recovery of house rent was issued on 4 April 2023, it has not been implemented to date. (iv) The Petitioner further submitted that prior to the issuance of the order dated 4 April 2023, he had already vacated the quarter on 1 March 2021, a fact known to the office of the Project Administrator, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani. Any arrear house rent payable should be calculated strictly in accordance with the Finance Department Resolution dated 15 December 2010. Page 5 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 (v) The Petitioner submitted that the Project Administrator imposed a penal licence fee amounting to five times the normal fee without adhering to the Finance Department Resolution dated 15 December 2010. Clause 4 of the said Resolution states that all Group-D Class-IV employees under the State Government shall pay a concessional licence fee of ₹70 per month for the lowest type of government quarters and ₹100 per month for the next higher type. (vi) The Petitioner submitted that, being a peon, he was unaware of any changes in licence fees or official directions. Despite this, deductions were made from his salary without his consent. He was neither provided with the audit report nor given an opportunity to object. Since the Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Phulbani allotted the quarter, they are responsible for ensuring correct allotment. The Petitioner cannot be held liable for errors attributable to others. Recovery based solely on the audit report without a hearing is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. (vii) The Petitioner submitted that although he was allotted another quarter, No. 8, meant for Class-IV employees at a licence fee of ₹140 per month, the quarter was in a dilapidated condition and uninhabitable. Consequently, the Petitioner did not vacate Quarter No. 13. Subsequently, a vacation notice was issued, and a licence fee of ₹1,64,090/- was imposed, prompting the Petitioner to file W.P.(C) No. 16458/2020. This Court, on 20.07.2020, granted the Petitioner liberty to file a representation before the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani Page 6 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 within two weeks. The Project Administrator was directed to decide the matter in accordance with law within four weeks, and until such decision, the status quo with respect to Quarter No. 13 was to be maintained. After disposal of W.P.(C) No. 16458/2020, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani on 28.07.2020, enclosing the Court’s decision along with COVID-19 guidelines and requested necessary action. However, the Project Administrator disregarded these COVID-19 guidelines and proceeded to impose the licence fee, reflecting a clear non-application of mind. (viii) The Petitioner submitted that although this Court’s order dated 20.07.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 16458/2020 directed the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani to consider the Petitioner’s representation and communicate its decision by 20.08.2020, no such decision was communicated or annexed. Despite this, the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani, without complying with the Finance Department Notification dated 15 December 2010, passed a vacation order. The Petitioner challenged this by way of W.P.(C) No. 24425/2020, contesting the vacation order and rejection of the representation dated 20.08.2020. This Court disposed of the case on 22.07.2022, directing the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani to decide in accordance with the Finance Department Notification at the earliest. However, the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani imposed a flat licence fee without following the Notification, thereby violating this Court’s order. Page 7 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 (ix) The Petitioner contended that Clause 5 of the Finance Department Notification dated 15.12.2010 was erroneously applied instead of Clause 4 while calculating the flat licence fee, indicating a non-application of mind. Further, this Court extended COVID-19 protection until March 2021, preventing the authority from imposing a flat licence fee for non- vacation of the quarter. Opposite Party No. 2 also calculated the fee suo- motu without proper reference to the Notification, rendering the calculation illegal and liable to be quashed. (x) The Petitioner submitted that the allegation of him being adamant, disobedient, and unauthorizedly occupying Quarter No. 13 is incorrect. This baseless claim was made without adhering to this Court’s order dated 11.06.2020 concerning COVID-19 protection. (xi) The Petitioner submitted that, being a Class-IV employee, he has been subjected to harassment by the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani. When the Petitioner did not vacate the government quarter, the Project Administrator, ITDA Phulbani passed an order dated 14.12.2020 and subsequently deputed the Petitioner to the Tahasil Office, Daringbadi, relieving him on 15.12.2020. The Petitioner contended that this action was taken with an ulterior motive, smacking of mala fide and arbitrariness, which cannot be sustained in law. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 8 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 (i) The Petitioner, a Class-IV employee, was allotted a newly constructed Class-III ITDA quarter on 7 August 2014 at a licence fee of ₹290 per month, owing to the non-availability of eligible Class-III employees. Pursuant to an audit conducted on 12 October 2017, the rent was recommended to be revised to ₹610 per month for the period from 1 July 2015 to 31 July 2017. The petitioner accepted the revision, and the differential amount was deducted from his salary. (ii) Following representations by newly appointed Class-III employees seeking quarters appropriate to their pay scale, the Petitioner’s allotment was cancelled on 4 January 2019. Notices directing him to vacate the quarter were issued in June 2020. (iii) Despite repeated notices, the Petitioner did not vacate the quarter, which was subsequently re-allotted to another employee. The Petitioner was instead allotted a Class-IV quarter at a licence fee of ₹140 per month. (iv) As per Government Order No. 51758 dated 15 December 2010, Class-IV employees are not entitled to quarters exceeding 270 sq. ft. The petitioner, being a Class-IV employee, does not have an unfettered right to occupy Quarter No. 13, which measures 982 sq. ft., and continued in unauthorised occupation. Consequently, flat, standard, and penal licence fees were imposed under Clause 4 of the said Government Circular. (v) Despite the alternate allotment, the Petitioner continued to occupy the original quarter until 30 June 2020. He was directed to vacate and Page 9 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 warned of penalties for overstaying from 4 February 2019 to 30 June 2020, as communicated by letter dated 13 July 2020. (vi) The Petitioner continued to occupy the quarter until 21 July 2020 despite repeated orders to vacate. The penal licence fee was deducted from his salary in accordance with the official resolution, rendering his objections untenable. (vii) A notice dated 22 July 2020 was served on the petitioner, imposing licence fees amounting to ₹1,64,090 for overstaying a period of sixteen months. This included a flat fee of ₹610 for February 2019, four times the standard rate for March and April 2019, and five times the standard rate as penal rent for the period from May 2019 to May 2020. (viii) Since the cancellation date, the Petitioner avoided the authorities and failed to seek any exemption from licence fees despite reminders, justifying the lawful imposition of fees for unauthorized occupation. (ix) The Petitioner has failed to pay the outstanding arrears of ₹2,35,000 despite being issued reminders in April 2023. Although an interim order dated 14 May 2024 restrained coercive recovery measures, the arrears remain unpaid, reflecting continued non-compliance. (x) No exemption or relaxation of licence fees was either sought by the Petitioner or granted by the authorities during the COVID-19 period. Consequently, any such claims are devoid of merit. (xi) The imposition of penal licence fees was carried out after due verification and in strict conformity with the Finance Department Page 10 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 Resolution dated 15 December 2010. Therefore, the present writ petition does not disclose any tenable ground for interference. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. The issue in the present writ petition pertains to the fixation and recovery of penal licence fees from the petitioner, a Class-IV government employee, for unauthorized occupation of a government quarter beyond the limits permitted under applicable rules and regulations. At the outset, this Court finds it appropriate to examine Finance Department Notification No. 51758 dated 15.12.2010, which pertains to the fixation of licence fee for residential accommodation allotted to Government employees under the Government of Orissa. The notification applies to Government quarters located throughout Orissa, under the administrative control of various Government Departments, with the exception of those situated in Cuttack and Bhubaneswar under General Administration Department. Clause 4 of the Notification prescribes concessional licence fees of ₹70 per month for the lowest type of Government quarters and ₹100 per month for quarters of the next higher category. Further, Clause 5 provides that, as far as practicable, allotment of quarters shall be made based on the eligibility of employees according to their pay range. Where an employee occupies a quarter not Page 11 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 commensurate with their eligible pay range, the licence fee payable shall be the flat rate applicable to the type of quarter occupied. 10. Clause 10(b) of the Notification provides for the imposition of penal licence fees in cases of unauthorized occupation or overstaying beyond permissible limits. The licence fee shall be charged at five times the standard licence fee for the period beyond the permissible occupation, followed by eviction proceedings as per the rules. 11. It is undisputed that the petitioner, a Class-IV employee by pay grade, was allotted a Class-III ITDA quarter due to the temporary unavailability of eligible Class-III employees. This arrangement was provisional, made out of administrative exigency. Subsequently, the petitioner’s allotment was cancelled on 04.01.2019, and a Class-IV quarter, appropriate to his entitlement, was reallotted to him. Nevertheless, the petitioner failed to vacate the higher-category accommodation and continued unauthorized occupation until 01.03.2021. 12. The Government quarter cancellation date was 04.01.2019. From 04.01.2019 to 31.01.2019, 28 days of grace period was allowed. a. For the period 01.02.2019 to 28.02.2019, a flat rate licence fee of ₹610.00 was charged. b. From 01.03.2019 to 30.04.2019, the standard licence fees applied at the rate of ₹610 x 4 for two months, totaling ₹4,880.00 and ₹ 5,490.00. c. From 04.02.2019 onwards, penal licence fees were charged at the rate of ₹610 x 4 (₹ 2,440) x 5 per month, amounting to ₹ 12,200.00. Page 12 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 13. As the Government quarter was vacated on 01.03.2021, penal licence fees were calculated as follows: a. From 01.02.2019 to 12/2019, at ₹ 12,200 x 11 months, totaling ₹1,34,200.00; b. From 01/2020 to 12/2020, at ₹12,200 x 12 months, totaling ₹1,46,400.00; and 14. 15. c. From 01/2021 to 02/2021, at ₹12,200 x 2 months, totaling ₹24,400.00. The overall total amount was ₹ 3,05,000.00. Of this amount, ₹70,000 had already been recovered from the petitioner’s salary by way of deduction. The petitioner’s continued occupation of the Class-III quarter after cancellation of his allotment, despite the availability of an alternative Class-IV quarter, clearly constitutes ‘unauthorized occupation’ as contemplated under the Finance Department Notification No. 51758 dated 15.12.2010. 16. The contention that such penal recovery is excessive or unfair is without merit. The principles of fairness cannot be invoked to justify continued unauthorized occupation of government property, especially when the applicable notification clearly prescribes enhanced penal licence fees for such violations. The charges were levied strictly in accordance with the prescribed rates laid down in the notification, which provides for a higher fee structure in cases of overstaying to discourage such conduct. 17. In view of the above, this Court finds no irregularity in the demand raised by the authorities. The fixation of penal licence fees has been Page 13 of 14 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 19:06:42 done strictly in accordance with the applicable Notification and the recoveries made thus far are within the bounds of law. CONCLUSION: In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the demand raised by the authorities for penal licence fees from the Petitioner is legally sustainable and in conformity with the applicable rules and the Finance Department Notification dated 15.12.2010. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. V. 18. 19. 20. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 16th May, 2025 Page 14 of 14