Unauthorised occupation and pension protection: market-rent damages apply, but unilateral deduction from commuted pension is impermissible.

Liability for damages at market rent for unauthorised retention of government accommodation arises once the allotment stands cancelled and the occupant remains in unlawful possession; it is not dependent on a further notice, and cannot be avoided by presumed relaxation or promissory estoppel. Relaxation under the allotment rules requires a specific order with recorded reasons. The article also notes that commuted pension retains the character of pension money until payment, so it is protected from attachment and cannot be unilaterally reduced to recover Government dues. Recovery must be pursued through lawful statutory proceedings or a civil suit, and any unauthorised deduction is refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether liability to pay damages at market rent for unauthorised retention of government accommodation under the allotment rules was contingent on prior notice, or could be displaced by promissory estoppel or presumed relaxation; (ii) whether the amount recoverable as damages could be unilaterally deducted from commuted pension in view of the exemption from attachment under the Pensions Act.

Issue (i): Whether liability to pay damages at market rent for unauthorised retention of government accommodation under the allotment rules was contingent on prior notice, or could be displaced by promissory estoppel or presumed relaxation.

Analysis: The allotment stood cancelled on expiry of the permissible retention period after transfer outside Delhi, and the occupant thereafter remained in unauthorised occupation. The relevant rule made damages for such occupation equal to market rent. The existence of liability did not depend on a further notice from the Directorate of Estates. Relaxation under the allotment rules required a specific order for recorded reasons and could not be presumed from administrative inaction. No representation by the Government induced a change of position so as to attract promissory estoppel.

Conclusion: The liability to pay damages at market rent was absolute, and the defence based on notice, presumed relaxation, and promissory estoppel failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount recoverable as damages could be unilaterally deducted from commuted pension in view of the exemption from attachment under the Pensions Act.

Analysis: The protection against seizure, attachment or sequestration extends to pension money due or to become due on account of pension, and commuted pension retained that character until payment. The Government could not, without authority of law, recover its dues by unilateral deduction from commuted pension. The proper course was to recover the amount by proceedings under the Public Premises Act or by a civil suit.

Conclusion: Unilateral deduction from commuted pension was impermissible, and the respondent was entitled to refund of the amount deducted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the deduction succeeded, but the Government was left free to pursue lawful recovery of damages for unauthorised occupation through the prescribed statutory or civil remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for damages for unauthorised occupation of public premises under the applicable allotment rules is not contingent on prior notice or presumed relaxation, and commuted pension is protected from unilateral recovery of Government dues by deduction because it remains money due on account of pension until paid.

---