Siddharth Upadhyay (S.I.C.P.) ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 1717 ALL

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

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.

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

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