The Allahabad High Court has upheld the recovery of ₹7.69 lakh in market rent from a government officer who continued occupying official accommodation in Lucknow for more than four years after his transfer to another district. The Court dismissed his petition and imposed costs of ₹10,000, citing his failure to comply with directions issued in an earlier round of litigation.
A Division Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary refused to interfere with the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal’s decision rejecting the claim of Vedanand Ojha, a former Assistant Commissioner in the Commercial Tax Department.
In its October 12 order, the Bench found that Ojha had disregarded an earlier High Court direction requiring him to undertake to vacate the accommodation by June 30, 2012. He neither submitted the undertaking nor vacated the premises within the prescribed period.
Court Finds No Grounds for Relief
The Bench held that Ojha could not seek equitable relief after failing to honour the commitments recorded in the earlier proceedings.
“A person who has scant respect for the majesty and dignity of this Court does not deserve any interference or can claim any equity in his favor,” the Court observed.
The judges noted that relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and must be granted only in appropriate circumstances. They found that Ojha had not approached the Court with clean hands, particularly given his non-compliance with its previous directions.
The Court also concluded that the tribunal had properly examined the relevant circumstances before rejecting his claim on July 1, 2026.
Earlier Agreement on Market Rent
A significant factor in the High Court’s decision was an order passed on February 2, 2012, in earlier proceedings initiated by Ojha.
At that stage, the parties had reached an agreement concerning payment of market rent for the period during which Ojha retained his Lucknow residence following his transfer in 2008.
The earlier order permitted him to deposit the applicable market rent after adjusting amounts already deducted from his salary towards house rent allowance.
The Court found that the consensus recorded in those proceedings established that Ojha had abandoned his objection to the imposition of market rent for continued occupation after his transfer.
Consequently, the Bench held that he could not reopen the same dispute through subsequent proceedings.
Government Accommodation Retained for Over Four Years
Ojha was allotted government residential accommodation in Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, in 2005 while serving in the Commercial Tax Department. He took possession on August 28, 2005.
Although he was transferred to Pilibhit in June 2008, he continued occupying the Lucknow quarters despite instructions to vacate them.
When the authorities initiated steps to recover possession, Ojha approached the High Court in 2012.
While disposing of that petition on February 2, 2012, the Court directed him to submit an undertaking within one week of receiving the order, confirming that he would vacate the accommodation by June 30, 2012.
Ojha failed to submit the undertaking and continued occupying the premises beyond the deadline. He eventually vacated the accommodation on September 10, 2012.
The department calculated market rent of ₹7.69 lakh for the period between July 2008 and June 2012.
Challenge to Recovery and Gratuity Deduction Rejected
Ojha subsequently challenged the recovery before the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal in Lucknow. The tribunal dismissed his claim on July 1, 2026.
He then moved the High Court seeking to overturn the tribunal’s decision. His petition also challenged a punishment order dated October 18, 2012, and a chargesheet issued on February 12, 2013.
Additionally, he requested the release of ₹7.69 lakh withheld from his gratuity, together with admissible interest.
The High Court held that the authorities were justified in charging market rent for unauthorised occupation beyond 30 days following his transfer and during his continued retention of the premises.
Finding no justification to interfere with the tribunal’s decision, the Bench dismissed the petition and directed Ojha to pay ₹10,000 as costs.
