Rupesh Kumar vs CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT on 15 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA) NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004 Order Sheet Item no.: 5 O.A./786/2026 (TELANGANA) [ ACCOMMODATION ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 1 Order Dated: 15/10/2026 RUPESH KUMAR Vs CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

For Applicant(s) Advocate : DR A RAGHU KUMAR

For Respondent(s) Advocate : K RAJITHA Order of The Tribunal Heard learned counsels for the parties. The interim order is absolute, and the submissions made by respondents are against their own policy. They have quoted Rule 36 (1), which says that the accommodation one type is higher than the entitled type in case of availability of surplus accommodation. It is noted and observed by the Tribunal that the authorities have allotted unsafe quarters to the employees, which is condemned. Having allotted the quarter, and under occupation of the applicants, now, when they are planning to reconstruct the same quarters, till the reconstruction is completed and quarters are ready to occupy again, it is their bounding duty to allot the alternative accommodation to the occupants one scale higher, if not available in the same scale. The respondents' contention is that the computer and online process could not be stopped after the interim stay granted by the Tribunal is not at all acceptable. Their contention is that there is no Type-II available, but, here the point is that in 2023

their so-called accommodation was declared not safe, but in 2024, the same accommodation was alloted. Respondents have to withdraw their contention otherwise produce the concerned computer expert software with a demo that how the same process could not be stopped when the order was communicated to them at 3.00 ''o" clock. Moreover, the respondents need to explain how and why bidding was opened and when the issue needs to be solved for allotting the alternative accommodation to the occupants, who have been served the notices. The letter, which is given here on 12.10.2026, needs to be probed when the order was passed at 3.00 pm by the Tribunal. How and why it was communicated through a WhatsApp message at 18.25 pm, and the same was received in New Delhi at 18.33 pm. The applicants cannot be asked to evict without alternative accommodation being shown when the quarter was unsafe while being alloted that needs to probed further. The bidding should not have been opened, and if it is opened, the 3 quarters, as instructed by the Tribunal earlier, needs to be kept un-allotted by the respondents. The next bidding needs to be stopped till the solution arrives for the applicants. Post the matter on 13.11.2026. Shalini Misra Member (A) K Adilaxmi ( court master )