Retired IPS Officer Wins Appeal Against Excess License Fee for Govt Residence

The appellant, a retired IPS Officer, successfully challenged the levy and collection of 'excess license fee' for government residence based on amendments in the Allotment of Government Residence Rules. The court found that the appellant's inability to vacate the government residence due to existing tenancy agreements made the fee unsustainable. The appellant was granted a refund of the deducted amount of Rs. 8696.10, with the appeal allowed and costs awarded in the appellant's favor.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the levy and collection of 'excess license fee' for government residence, constitutional validity of amendments in the Allotment of Government Residence Rules, and the appellant's entitlement to refund of the amount deducted from his pay bill.

Levy and Collection of 'Excess License Fee':
The appellant, a retired IPS Officer, was aggrieved by the deduction of Rs. 8696.10 from his pay bill towards 'excess license fee' for government residence for the period January 1976 to May 1977. This deduction was made based on the amendments introduced in the Allotment of Government Residence Rules in 1976, which required officers owning a house to surrender government accommodation. Despite being a joint owner of a house in Delhi, the appellant had rented out the property and was unable to vacate the government residence. The respondents insisted on payment as per the rules, leading to the deduction in question.

Constitutional Validity of Amendments:
Initially, the appellant challenged the validity of the amendments through a writ petition, which was later withdrawn with liberty to file a similar petition in the Delhi High Court. The matter was eventually transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the validity of the amendments and the collection of damages for use and occupation. However, the Tribunal and the appellant failed to consider a crucial point regarding the appellant's inability to move to his own house due to existing tenancy agreements.

Entitlement to Refund:
The judgment highlighted that the appellant, due to the ongoing lease of his jointly owned house, was not in a position to surrender the government residence as required by the rules. The legal principle of 'lex non cogit ad impossibilia' was invoked, stating that the law does not compel a person to do the impossible. As the rules could not be applied to the appellant under the circumstances, the levy and collection of the 'excess license fee' were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to a refund of the deducted amount of Rs. 8696.10. The appeal was allowed with costs.

---