Allahabad High Court
Siddharth Upadhyay (S.I.C.P.) And 16 ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 May, 2014
Author: B. Amit Sthalekar
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 59 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26811 of 2014 Petitioner :- Siddharth Upadhyay (S.I.C.P.) And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 11.04.2014, which in fact is a notice to the petitioner to vacate the official quarter situate in Police Line Moradabad within 7 days.
From a perusal of the impugned order, it is noticed that the petitioner has been promoted as Sub-Inspector and posted at Shahjahanpur but he is continuing to occupy the official quarter no.C-365 in the Police Line, Moradabad. The petitioner is a Government servant and if he is transferred to another place he must vacate the official quarter otherwise he renders himself open to the disciplinary proceedings as well as penal consequences by way of penal rent. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the notice dated 11.04.2014.
The division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2002 (1) ESC (All), Jag Pal Singh Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others has held that a person who has been transferred to another place cannot continue to occupy the official accommodation since he has been transferred and he cannot contend that he has not been allotted any accommodation at the transferred place. The said judgment reads as follows:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned standing counsel.
2. The petitioner is Assistant Manager in District Industries Center and he has been transferred from Ghaziabad to Gautam Buddh Nagar. However, he has not yet vacated the official accommodation in his possession at Ghaziabad. He has challenged the impugned order of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad dated 26.4.2001 Annexure-4 to the writ petition, by which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the said accommodation.
3. It is deeply regrettable that the petitioner is still retaining the official accommodation at Ghaziabad 2 although he has been transferred to Gautam Buddh Nagar a long time back. If a Government servant does not vacate the official accommodation after his transfer/retirement, his successor will have no place to live in.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not been allotted any accommodation at Gautam Buddh Nagar. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot continue to occupy the official accommodation at Ghaziabad since he has been transferred from there. He should have by now looked for some private accommodation at Gautam Buddh Nagar. A large number of petitions have come to this Court filed by the Government employees who have not vacated the official accommodation even after transfer/retirement. We cannot approve of this kind of practice.
5. The petition is dismissed."
The division bench of this Court reported in 2004 (1) ESC 164, K.M. Raizada Vs. Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and others in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 has held as follows:
"3. The Appellant was in the employment of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and in that capacity, he was allotted an official accommodation at Ghanta Ghar, Civil Lines, Aligarh in 1989. He retired in February 2003, but he has not yet vacated the official accommodation in his possession.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on a scheme of the State Government inviting application for conversion of nazul land into free hold. In our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant to the present case. When an employee in possession of an official accommodation retires or is transferred, he should within a reasonable time vacate the accommodation in his possession, otherwise his successor will have no place to live in. Decent people vacate the accommodation soon after retirement or transfer, but in this country, decency is evidently at a discount. Case after case is coming before us in which an official, who has retired or was transferred, continues to hold on to the official accommodation, often even several years after the retirement or transfer. This disgraceful practice has become rampant and now it must be put at an end.
3
5. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal, but we also direct that the Appellant will be evicted from the official accommodation in his possession by police force within one month from today unless he vacates it earlier.
6. We further direct that throughout U.P. all official accommodations must similarly be got vacated within one month of the retirement/transfer of the employee of the Government, Local Bodies, Public Sector undertakings, statutory bodies, etc. by police force unless the employee voluntarily vacates it earlier. The employees who have already retired or have been transferred more than one month before this judgment, will be evicted from the official accommodation in their possession within a week."
The Supreme Court in (2010) 15 SCC 788, Union of India Vs. Sisir Kumar Deb, has held as follows:-
"3.The respondent having retired from service was expected to vacate the quarter occupied by him as an employee of the Railway Administration. He failed to do so. In proceedings bearing No. 148 of 1988 arising out of MA No. 223 of 1897 in the matter of TA No. 1019 of 1986, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) passed an order to the following effect:
"Therefore, in our opinion, he has really committed contempt of this Tribunal. However, we give him a last chance to vacate the quarter and pay the arrears of rent within a month failing which he would be sent to civil prison until he complies with the order passed by the Tribunal in MA No. 223 of 1987 and the present order."
4. After this order was passed, since the respondent did not comply, the Railway Administration deducted the amount due from the pension relief admissible to the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed O.A. No. 599 of 1992 in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench). This OA was heard by the Judicial Member, Shri N. Sen Gupta who was also a Member of the Bench which heard the application and passed the extracted order. Even after taking note of the earlier order passed by the Bench to which he was a party, and was in fact its author, he proceeded to pass the impugned order by which the Department was precluded from recovering the amount from the pension relief and directed refund of the amount already recovered. What is now surprising is that after taking note of the earlier order in para 4 of the impugned order, instead of taking action against the respondent as per the earlier order, he directed the Railway Administration to refund the amount and even left the matter in regard to grant of complimentary 4 passes open. Therefore, instead of taking action in contempt against the respondent by the impugned order, the Department was prevented from realising its dues from the respondent who overstayed the period post-retirement. The Tribunal also did not take note of this Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Shiv Charan by which this Court had permitted deduction of the charges due from the occupant from the dues payable to him. Besides, no valid ground has been given for not permitting the deduction to the Department. We find it difficult to comprehend the rationale for the view taken by the Judicial Member. Instead of ensuring delivery of possession from a person who, in violation of the Tribunal's order, was continuing to occupy the quarter and who could not have been said to have approached the Tribunal in OA No. 599 of 1992 with clean hands, the Tribunal has virtually rewarded him, in that, he can now continue to remain in occupation of the quarter indefinitely and also not pay the charges for the same. The learned Member should have visualised the situation that would arise by the said order. We, therefore, cannot allow the order to stand.
5.In the result, we set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.1993. We further make it clear that the Railway Administration will be free to take possession of the quarter from the respondent, if necessary, by use of force, if he does not deliver the possession within 15 days. The Railway Administration will also be free to recover its dues from any amount payable to the respondent and if the same falls short, the difference in accordance with law." In the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner may be granted 7 days time to vacate the official quarter.
I am not inclined to grant this relief because the notice was given to the petitioner on 11.4.2014 and this writ petition has come up before this court on 14.05.2014, i.e. after one month and one week from the date of impugned notice, therefore, the petitioner has already been enjoying retaining of the official accommodation for more than one month and one week after the passing of the impugned order. Order Date :- 14.5.2014/N Tiwari