A division bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Awadhesh Kumar Chaudhary declined to interfere with the decision of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal while hearing a petition filed by Vedanand Ojha, a former Assistant Commissioner in the Commercial Tax Department.
In its order dated October 12, the High Court observed that Ojha had failed to comply with directions issued in February 2012. The court had directed him to provide a written undertaking that he would vacate the government accommodation by June 30, 2012. However, he neither submitted the undertaking nor vacated the premises within the stipulated period.
High Court Says Non-Compliance Bars Judicial Relief
Expressing displeasure over the officer's conduct, the High Court said that a person who had disregarded its earlier directions could not seek concessions from the court.
The bench observed, "A person who does not have even the slightest respect for the dignity and prestige of this Court is not entitled to any interference by the Court, nor can he claim any equitable concession in his favour."
The court clarified that granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution falls within its discretionary powers and that such powers should be exercised only in appropriate cases.
The bench found that Ojha had not approached the court with clean hands and had violated earlier judicial directions. It concluded that there were no grounds to grant him relief.
The High Court also held that the State Public Services Tribunal had properly dismissed his petition on July 1, 2026, after considering all the relevant aspects of the case.
Officer Had Earlier Agreed to Pay Rent at Market Rates
The High Court considered an order dated February 2, 2012, particularly significant because it recorded an agreement between the two sides concerning the vacation of the government accommodation and payment of rent.
At that time, Ojha had agreed to pay rent at market rates for the period he remained in government accommodation after his transfer in 2008.
The court had permitted him to deposit the remaining rent after adjusting the amount already deducted from his salary under the house rent allowance head.
During the present proceedings, the bench said the consent recorded in the earlier order clearly established that Ojha had given up his objection to being charged market-rate rent for occupying government accommodation after his transfer.
Consequently, the court held that he could not reopen the same issue and raise the dispute again.
Transferred to Pilibhit in 2008, Vacated Lucknow House in September 2012
Vedanand Ojha was allotted government accommodation in Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, in 2005 while serving in the Commercial Tax Department. He took possession of the accommodation on August 28, 2005.
He was transferred to Pilibhit in June 2008 but continued to reside in the government accommodation in Lucknow. Despite departmental instructions, he did not vacate the premises.
When officials initiated proceedings to recover the accommodation, Ojha approached the High Court in 2012.
On February 2, 2012, the High Court disposed of his petition and directed him to submit a written undertaking within one week of receiving a copy of the order, confirming that he would vacate the accommodation by June 30, 2012.
However, he failed to submit the undertaking within the prescribed period and continued occupying the premises even after the deadline expired.
He eventually vacated the government accommodation on September 10, 2012, more than two months after the deadline set by the court.
The department subsequently assessed rent of ₹7.69 lakh at market rates for the period from July 2008 to June 2012.
Tribunal Rejected Challenge to Rent Recovery
Ojha challenged the department's recovery before the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal in Lucknow. On July 1, 2026, the tribunal rejected his claim.
He subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the tribunal's decision. He also challenged the penalty order dated October 18, 2012, and the charge sheet dated February 12, 2013.
In addition, Ojha sought the return of ₹7.69 lakh withheld from his gratuity, along with interest at the prescribed rate.
The High Court held that the authorities were justified in imposing rent at market rates because Ojha had continued occupying the government accommodation without permission even 30 days after his transfer.
The bench further ruled that recovering rent at market rates was justified for the period of unauthorised occupation that continued until he voluntarily vacated the premises.
On these grounds, the High Court refused to interfere with the tribunal's order, dismissed Vedanand Ojha's petition and imposed a fine of ₹10,000. The ruling upholds the authorities' decision to recover market-rate rent for his unauthorised occupation of government accommodation in Lucknow.
About The Author
Comment List