Allahabad High Court
Shyam Singh vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Home Lucknow & ... on 24 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1384
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 26 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 10099 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Home Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Parashu Ram Kanaujia,Veer Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.
Heard Sri P. R. Kanaujia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Ran Vijay Singh, Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State.
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has worked on the post o Sub Inspector (Account) and was transferred from CBCID, Lucknow Headquarter to Lucknow Zone by means of order dated 25.7.2017 and further by means of order dated 5.8.2017 passed by Additional Director General, Lucknow he was allotted Faizabad Zone and posted at District Barabanki. The petitioner is residing in the house alloted to him since 1992 at Lucknow and after his transfer to Barabanki did not vacate the said official accommodation. It has further been stated that the petitioner moved an application for further retention of the official accommodation on the ground that his son was studying in class XII. The respondents sympathetically considered the case of the petitioner and permitted him to continue to occupy the official accommodate till 30th April, 2014. By means of order dated 29.5.2018 Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Lucknow informed the petitioner that his retention of the official accommodation is subject to certain conditions including that he will regularly pay electricity and water charges, he will not cause any damage to the property and he would voluntarily vacate the accommodation by 30th April, 2019 after completion of education of his son.
Despite the said order the petitioner did not vacate the premises by 30th April, 2019 and continued to occupy the same and he moved application for further retention of the accommodation in December, 2019. By means of the impugned notice dated 29.5.2020 the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Lucknow has given a notice to the petitioner whereby all the aforesaid facts have been mentioned and he has been asked to vacate the premises within seven days. Despite the notice instead of vacating the premises the petitioner has rushed to this Court assailing the said order.
The petitioner is a member of disciplined force working as Sub Inspector, Accountant in CBCID and for discharging his duties he was alloted the official accommodation at Lucknow. Despite the fact that he was transferred out of Lucknow in 2017 he retained the official accommodation. The respondent-authorities taking a sympathetic view of the circumstances of the petitioner whereby his son was stying in class XI permitted him to occupy the official accommodation till 30th April, 2019. A perusal of the said order would indicate that permission to overstay in the official accommodation was subject to certain conditions including the fact that he was to voluntarily vacate the premises on completion of education of his son on 30th April, 2019. Instead of complying the said condition the petitioner continued to overstay in the accommodation. He also did not submit any application pursuant to 30th April,2019 or prior to that for retention of the accommodation. Retention of the accommodation subsequent to 30.4.2019 is clearly unauthorized.
The matter regarding overstaying in the accommodations was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. D. Bandi Verus Divisional Traffic Officer KSRTC & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 631. Before Hon'ble Supreme Court even State of U.P. was a party in the case. After making reference to various Rules of Financial Handbook it stated that government servants would be allowed to retain accommodation for a period of one month after the period of transfer and he is supposed to vacate the premises within a period of one month. After expiry of aforesaid period two consequences emerge: one that the petitioner is liable to be given notice under Public Premises Eviction Act to vacate the premises and secondly rent at market rate of the accommodation is liable to be taken from the employee over staying in the accommodation. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of the judgment of Apex Court is quoted as under:-
"31. On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Assistant Estates Officer, Government of U.P. submitted his response as to the suggestions of the learned amicus curiae. He also highlighted that necessary amendments should be made in their allotment rules. According to him, in respect of arrears of rent and damages, the rules enable them to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. The State has also highlighted that stringent provision, viz., Section 11 of the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 is in force. As per the said provision, if any person who has been evicted from any public premises again occupies the same without authority for such occupation, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 year or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. He also highlighted the allotment procedure in respect of journalists, the legislature, the executive, the judiciary as well as memorials available in their State.
32. As per the details furnished by learned amicus curiae and various comments made by Union of India as well as some of the States and the Union Territories, it cannot be said that at present there is no machinery to check eviction of unauthorized occupants as well as recovery of arrears of rent including penal charges. However, it is not in dispute that in spite of existing provisions/rules, directions etc., the fact remains same and the persons from all the three branches either by their influence or by lengthy procedure as provided in the Act, continue to stay in the government accommodation by paying paltry amount either by way of rent or penalty. In these circumstances, we are of the view that in addition to the statutory provisions, there is need to frame guidelines for the benefit of both Union of India/States and Union Territories for better utilization of their premises."
In the present case after one year of unauthorized occupation the petitioner has been given a notice by means of the impugned order.
The petitioner in this petition has stated that consequent to COVID 19 pandemic he is unable to get a house on rent but failed to explain as to why he did not vacate the premises since April, 2019. Clearly the petitioner had sufficient time since April, 2019 to get accommodation at his place of posting i.e. Lucknow.
In view of above, there is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed.
In the aforesaid circumstances, one month's period from today is given to the petitioner to vacate 201, Type III, CBCID Colony, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow failing which the respondents would be at liberty to get the same vacated in accordance with law. Looking into the fact that the petitioner has been in unauthorized occupation since April, 2019 the respondents are at liberty to recover rent at market rate from the petitioner in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.6.2020 (Alok Mathur, J.) RKM.