VINOD KRISHNA KAUL, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (RETIRED) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

VINOD KRISHNA KAUL, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (RETIRED) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Clause (3) of the Rules applies only to a government officer who not only owns but also has possession or right to immediate possession of a house; the rule cannot be applied where the officer is prevented from immediate possession due to legal tenancy. Levy of excess licence fee is not justified where surrender of accommodation is impossible.

Parties
Appellant: Vinod Krishna Kaul; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Government Accommodation, Allotment Rules, Licence Fee, Rent Control, Government Employee Housing
Administrative Law Government Accommodation Allotment Rules Licence Fee Rent Control Government Employee Housing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vinod Krishna Kaul

Appellant

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended Allotment of Government Residence Rules, 1963 (as amended 1.1.1976) require a government servant who merely owns, but does not possess, a house to surrender government accommodation and pay excess licence fee
  2. 2 Applicability of Clause 3 and 4 to government servants with no immediate possession of owned house

Ratio Decidendi

Clause (3) of the Rules applies only to a government officer who not only owns but also has possession or right to immediate possession of a house; the rule cannot be applied where the officer is prevented from immediate possession due to legal tenancy. Levy of excess licence fee is not justified where surrender of accommodation is impossible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Levy and collection of excess licence fee at market rates (Rs. 8696.10) is not sustainable
  • Appellant is entitled to refund of the excess licence fee