Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramjee Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2015

                          WP-17387-2014
         (SURENDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


14-07-2015

      Shri Sharad Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
      Shri A.P. Singh, learned Govt. Adv. for State-respondents.

Heard.

The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 4.5.2012 (Annexure-P-1). By the aforesaid order, the competent Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police (Railway) Bhopal, has ordered recovery of penal rent at the rate of Rs.1,450/- per month from the petitioners on account of illegal occupation of Government quarter allotted to the petitioners.

The petitioners themselves pleaded that they were working on the post of ASI, Head Constables and Constables at GRP Bhopal because they were posted at GRP Bhopal hence, they were allotted Government Quarters at Bhopal. The petitioners were transferred to GRP Itarsi, within the Bhopal Division. On transfer the petitioner did not hand over the vacant possession of the Government quarters allotted to them hence, the competent Authority passed an order of recovery from the petitioners. The petitioners have taken a ground in the petition that the petitioners were transferred within the same division, the GRP Itarsi comes within the Bhopal Division hence in accordance with Rule 45, the petitioners, were not required to vacate the Government accommodation. In support of this contention, the petitioners relied on a letter dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure-P-2) in which it has been mentioned that when the Headquarter of an employee has not been changed in accordance with Rule 45, the employee is not liable to pay the penal rent.

The respondents in the reply denied the pleadings of the petitioners. It has been specifically denied that there is any provision in the Rule 45 which provides that the petitioners be permitted to occupy the quarters, if the transfer is within the same division. It is further submitted that the headquarter of the petitioners was at Police Station GRP Itarsi. It is further pleaded that in accordance with Police Regulation 64, the employees of Police Department are required to reside and discharge their duties at the place where they have been transferred. The respondents further filed the circular dated 5.12.2008 issued by the Police Department in which it has been mentioned that it is obligatory on the part of an employees of the Police Department to vacate the Quarter after transfer within a period of four months and if he did not vacate the premises, penal rent shall be charged.

In the present case, the petitioners did not vacate the quarters allotted to them. In accordance with M.P. Police Regulation 64, it is obligatory on the part of the employees working in the Police Department to reside on the transferred place. The relevant provision is reproduced as under:-

“64. lsok dh lkekU; 'krsZa& iqfyl esa fu;qfDr ds fy;s izR;sd mEehnokj dks] fu;qfDr ds iwoZ] iqfyl lsok dh lkekU; 'krksZa ls tks fd fuEu izdkj gSa] voxr djk nsuk pkfg,& ¼1½ izR;sd iqfyl inkf/kdkjh dsoy iqfyl lsok ds fy, viuk iwjk le; yxk;sxkA og fdlh Hkh O;kikj ;k O;olkl; esa tSlk Hkh gks Hkkx ugha ysxkA tc rd fd ,slk djus ds fy, Li"V :i ls vuqefr izkIr u gksA ¼2½ iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ds :i esa vius leLr drZO;ksa dks iwjk djus ds fy, og fu"BkiwoZd ,oa bZekunkjh iwoZd viuh mRre ;ksX;rkvksa dk mi;ksx djsxkA ¼3½ og] lHkh fu;eksa ds] tks fd le;≤ ij lsok fofu;eu ,oa vPNh O;oLFkk ds fy, cuk, tk;sa] vlafnX/k :i ls vius vkidks vuqdwy j[ksxk vkSj mlds lEeku vkSj izfr"Bk ds fy, mfpr lEeku dh vknr MkysxkA ¼4½ og vuq'kklu ds fy, lefiZr gksxk] v/khurk dk ikyu djsxk vkSj rRijrk ls lHkh dkuwuh vkns'kksa dk ikyu djsxkA ¼5½ tgkWa dgha Hkh mls fuokl djus ,oa lsok djus ds fy, funsZf'kr fd;k tk, ogka og fuokl djsxk ,oa lsok djsxkA “””” A copy of the circular dated 5.12.2008, issued by the Police Headquarter, Bhopal has also been filed. In accordance with Clause 16 of the circular, it is obligatory on the part of the employee to vacate the premises within a period of four months after transfer and if the employee did not vacate the premises, he would be liable to pay the penal rent. The relevant Clause is as under:-

“16. lsokfuo`fRr vFkok LFkkukUrj.k ds i'pkr vf/kdre 4 ekg esa vkokl vkoaVh dks [kkyh djuk gksxkA vkoaVh dks mDr vof/k ds ckn Hkh vkokl esa jgus ds fy, le{k vf/kdkjh ls fuokl dh vuqefr yh tkuk vfuok;Z gksxhA ,slh vuqefr isuy jsaV vFkok cktkj nj tks Hkh ykxw gks] ds Hkqxrku ij gh nh tkosxhA fcuk oS| vuqefr ds vkokl esa jgus dh fLFkfr esa bdkbZ izHkkjh dk nkf;Ro gksxk fd vkokl rqjUr [kkyh djkosaA vkokl [kkyh djus ls Bhd iwoZ vkoaVh vFkok vkoaVh ds fdlh dkj.k ls vuqiyC/k jgus ls vkoaVh ds ifr@iRuh] iq=@iq=h tks Hkh ofj"Bre gks] dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og fcUnq Øekad&11 esa lEink vf/kdkjh dks lwfpr djsa] rFkk fujh{k.k djkdj dCtk lkSaisA ;fn lEink vf/kdkjh ds er esa edku esa dksbZ VwV&QwV ;k vukf/kd`r mi;[email protected] ik;k x;k gS] rks bl gsrq lEink vf/kdkjh }kjk cukbZ tkus okyh fujh{k.k fjiksVZ ij vfHkLohd`fr Lo:i gLrk{kj djsaA “ It is also submitted that the petitioners have charged the TA and DA after their transfer at Police Station GRP Itarsi.

In this view of the matter, in my opinion there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.

Two months time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the quarter, if the same has not been vacated.

(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE