V. Kameswar Rao JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct or issue a writ of appropriate nature, thereby quashing the Officer Order No. TCIL/11/802/01/17/ADMN, dt. 07.07.2017 passed by the respondent and thereafter direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retain the Office Accommodation for a period of 8 months as per prevailing rules on 31.05.2017, inclusive of the Rules forming part of Office Memorandum dt. 31.07.2013.
Any other order(s) or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may be passed in the interest of justice."
2. Vide order dated July 07, 2017 the respondents have allowed the retention by the petitioner, the H. No. 637, Maruti Mane Block for two months with effect from June 01, 2017 to July 31, 2017 and was directed to pay normal Licence Fee for the period of retention. It is the submission of Mr. Harsh K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired as General Manager from the respondent No. 1 Organization on May 31, 2017. During his employment with the respondent No. 1, the petitioner was allotted, on September 01, 2009 H. No. 637, Maruti Mane Block, Asian Games Village, New Delhi-49. On the date of his superannuation, as per the instructions issued by the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated July 31, 2013 as adopted by the Board of Directors of TCIL, the petitioner is entitled to retain the house for a total period of eight months after the date of superannuation.
3. He would submit, that the petitioner had applied for retention of the accommodation on May 23, 2017 i.e before the date of superannuation. Unfortunately, vide Office Order dated June 30, 2017 whereby new Rules have been framed for retention of flats on retirement/death (during service/voluntary retirement), the petitioner has been allowed retention of the accommodation only for two months. He stated that much before the office order of June 30, 2017 was issued, the petitioner, in conformity with the Office Memorandum dated July 31, 2013 of the Govt. of India as adopted by the respondent No. 1, had submitted a cheque of Rs. 20,332/- towards advance licence fee up to January 31, 2018. Unfortunately, the same has been returned back to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1 for unknown reasons. In any case, it is his submission that once a right has accrued to the petitioner under the OM dated July 31, 2013, the respondents could not, under the garb of issuing new Rules, allow retention only for two months. He would submit, the reasons for seeking retention under the old Rules for a period of eight months, which is automatic are other than family reasons. The petitioner who had booked a flat in Noida in the year 2012 is yet to get the possession. That apart, he would state, that in similar circumstances Mr. Vimal Wakhlu, Ex-Chairman, who retired on January 31, 2016 was allowed to retain the accommodation till September 30, 2016 for a period of eight months. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as MANU/SC/0667/2013 : (2013) 12 SCC 631 S.D. Bandi v. Divisional Traffic Officer, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. In support ........