* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16224/2004 SUJIT KUMAR MONDAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Suresh Kait, Mr. Yogesh Verma And Mr. Abhishek Verma, Adv. for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 22.05.2008 1. In July 2001, the petitioner, Mr. Sujit Mondol, who was then working as deputy Director in the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), was allotted Government Accommodation bearing Flat No. D-302, Sector 10, Nivedita Kunj, R.K.Puram, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the property). 2. On 31st July 2003, the petitioner was sent on deputation by Ministry of Power (MOP) to National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) at Angul in Orissa, for a period of three years. 3. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was entitled to retain the said accommodation during the period of deputation, if the said posting was mandatory. 4. The petitioner has along with the petition filed Office Memorandum (OM) dated 16th December, 2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Power, which states that as per service rules it is mandatory for Group A officers to have requisite field experience. It is further stated that the petitioner was working as Deputy Director of the CEA and was sent by the Ministry to NTPC for a period of three years w.e.f.; 1st August, 2003 under the said Rules. The Memorandum records that the Ministry of Power is competent to issue the requisite certificate that entitles a Group A officer to retain Government accommodation during the period of his/her deputation. Reference is made to OM dated 11th October, 2000 issued by the Directorate of Estates. Along with the OM dated 16th December, 2003, a certificate was also issued by the Joint Secretary to the Ministry of Power. The said certificate reads as under: “CERTIFICATE Certified that Shri S.K. Mondal, Dy. Director, an officer of the Central Power Engineering (Group A) Service and working in the Central Electricity Authority, an attached office of the Ministry of Power has been sent on deputation to the National Thermal Power Corporation for a period of three years w.e.f. 1.8.2003 in public interest on mandatory basis without seeking his option.” 5. By another Office Memorandum dated 23.7.2004, the Central Electricity Authority had informed the petitioner‟s wife that they had already issued a mandatory certificate which entitles the petitioner to retain the official accommodation. The said Office Memorandum also states that the matter had been taken up by the Ministry of Power with Department of Personnel and Training. It seems that the said department had taken up the plea that Ministry of Power was not competent to issue the mandatory posting certificate. This was however disputed by the Ministry of Power and it was stated in the Office Memorandum that Directorate of Estate was informed and had not raised any objection. 6. The Directorate of Estates insists that mandatory certificate could have been issued only by the Department of Personnel and Training and as the petitioner has failed to get the said certificate, he is liable to pay the damages. Reference by the said respondent has been made in OM dated 11.10.2000, the relevant portion of which in paragraph 4 reads as under:- “ii) the officers posted to PSUs on mandatory basis or under Central Staffing Scheme may be considered eligible for the allotment/retention of General Pool Accommodation and the concerned organization should pay an amount equivalent to the HRA admissible to the officer, plus the flat rate of license fee prescribed by the Central Govt. from time to time, in respect of the General Pool Residential Accommodation to be allotted/retained by such officers. The organization may however, recover normal license fee from the concerned officers; and iii) In respect of each case under (ii) above, the office of the Establishment Officer, DoPT shall issue a certificate that the posting of the officer concerned to the PSUs etc. is on mandatory basis or under Central Staffing Scheme without seeking his/her option and is in public interest.” 7. The Ministry of Power, on the other hand, has taken the stand that as per Rules, officers including the petitioner were required to possess three years field experience and, therefore, the petitioner was sent on deputation and this was mandatory. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was posted on deputation with NTPC without seeking his consent or giving him any choice. 8. It is clear from the above that the Directorate of Estates and the Ministry of Power were required to resolve the matter and the petitioner has suffered because they were taking contradictory stands. The petitioner was sent on deputation without his consent. He had no choice. If required, Ministry of Power should have obtained „no objection certificate‟ from DOPT. If there was a lapse on the part of the Ministry of Power, who insists that no such certificate was required, the petitioner cannot be made to pay damages. The stand taken by the said Ministry throughout has been that the petitioner was entitled to retain his official accommodation and the certificate issued by them is sufficient. I may also note that the petitioner has re-joined his parent department and accordingly w.e.f. 21.8.2006 i.e. from the date of his repatriation he is being charged normal rent. 9. This Court while issuing notice on the writ petition had also granted stay vide order dated 8.10.2004. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The petitioner will not be liable to pay any damages for the period during which he was working on deputation with National Thermal Power Corporation. The petitioner will also be entitled to cost of the writ petition. The costs are assessed at Rs.10,000/-. Respondents 1 & 2 will pay the cost to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The writ petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 22, 2008 Nk/VKR