Umanand Tiwari vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 30 October 2026

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. Director General of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Hazratganj, Lucknow – 226001.

4. Director, Postal Accounts, Aliganj, Lucknow.

5. Assistant Director (Personnel), Office of the Chief Post Master General, Uttar Pradesh Circle, Lucknow – 226001.

….Respondents

By Advocate: Ms. Manorama Mishra

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A) In this case relating to the recovery of damage rent, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

(i) Quash the impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by opposite party nos. 4 and 5 against the applicant as Annexure-A-1 to this application.

(ii) Direct the respondents to decide the representation dated 03.12.2025 moved by the applicant by hand to the respondents, till the disposal of original application the respondents not recovered or deducted the rent from his pension.

(iii) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the original application to the applicant/petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant retired from service on 31.07.2020 while working under the respondents. The applicant requested and he was permitted for retention of official accommodation allotted to him for a period of six months after retirement, i.e., upto 31.01.2021. The respondents issued recovery notice dated 01.07.2024 to the applicant to which he replied on 05.08.2024 and approached this Tribunal in OA No. 23 of 2025 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 17.01.2025, directed the respondents to decide his representation. The applicant’s representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 03.11.2025. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s contention is that he had moved an application dated 30.09.2020 for vacation of the allotted quarter and that he had vacated the allotted quarter on 05.08.2020 itself, but he was shocked to receive notice dated 08.02.2021 as well as several subsequent notices to which he had replied; yet notice dated 01.07.2024 for recovery of damage rent of Rs. 18.80 lakh was issued to him. He further contends that he has not permitted any person to reside in the house allotted to him and that he requested the respondent no. 3 on 02.12.2025 that he had vacated the house and to take action against unauthorized occupant.

4. The respondents state that the applicant was granted permission to retain the official quarter allotted to him for six months, i.e., from August, 2020 to January, 2021 and that the applicant deposited the license fee of Rs. 2,280 for the same on 30.09.2020; that the vacation notices dated 08.02.2021 and 10.03.2021 were sent to the applicant without any response from him; that it was reported that the applicant’s brother, Sanjay Tiwari, was living in the quarter allotted to

the applicant; that eviction notice was issued on 06.07.2021; and that amount of Rs. 3,40,915 has been recovered against demurrage charge from applicant’s dearness relief.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant contends that his brother, Sanjay Tiwari, has been living in the quarter allotted to him and that he had requested the respondents to take action against such illegal occupation.

6. Heard both the parties. 7.1 It is not in dispute that the official accommodation was allotted to the applicant and he was permitted to retain it for a period of six months after his retirement on 31.07.2020. 7.2 Perusal of applicant’s letter dated 30.09.2020 (Annexure No. 2 to the OA) informing that he has vacated the allotted quarter reveals that it bears no acknowledgment of receipt by the respondents. The applicant has claimed that he vacated the quarter on 05.08.2020, but the date of vacation is not mentioned in the letter dated 30.09.2020. It is noted further that the applicant deposited the license fee for retention for six months on 30.09.2020 which is not in consonance with his claim of having vacated the quarter on 05.08.2020 and having surrendered it on 30.09.2020. 7.3 It is observed that the applicant has also not approached this Tribunal with clean hands as he failed to disclose in the OA that his brother has been living in the official quarter allotted to him after his retirement from service; it was only after the mention of this fact in the counter affidavit by the respondents that the applicant acknowledged it in the rejoinder affidavit.

7.4 It is noted that though the applicant claims that the respondents should take action against the unauthorized occupant of the official accommodation which was allotted to the applicant, he has not explained as to how the possession of the quarter allotted to him came to his brother and what action he took for vacation of the quarter by his brother. 7.5 As the official quarter was allotted to the applicant, he cannot escape from the responsibility for its unauthorized occupation by his brother beyond the retention period permitted in favour of the applicant by the respondents. 7.6 In conclusion, the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. 8.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 8.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 8.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar)

Member (A)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.11.02 13:02:53 +05'30'