[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Avatar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026
1
WPS No. 6099 of 2019
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:14514
ANKIT
ANKIT KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.03.27
NAFR
18:29:17
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6099 of 2019
Ram Avatar Sharma S/o Late Badri Prasad Sharma, Aged
About 62 Years, R/o House No. 05, Khursipar, Power
House Bhilai, MPR Road, Near Cities Beauty Parlor, District
Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Skill Development
Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,
New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. The Director Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan,
First Floor, Block 4, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. The Joint Director (Training) Regional Office, Industrial
Training Institute, Durg Region, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4. The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Bhilai, District
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
5. The Principal Industrial Training Institute, Mohla, District
Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner :- Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate, with Mr.
Harshwardhan Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra & Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia,
Panel Lawyers.
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Order On Board
27.03.2026
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition calling in
question the legality, validity and correctness of the order
dated 04.07.2017 by which amount of ₹4,97,600/- has
sought to be recovered as penal rent from the petitioner's
gratuity.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made by the petitioner on
the following factual backdrop:-
2.1 The petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-III in
the Industrial Training Institute (for short ITI), Bhilai,
District Durg, from where he was transferred to ITI, Mohla,
District Rajnandgaon in the month of June, 2009.
However, he was not allotted any quarter at ITI Mohla,
therefore, he remained stayed at Government quarter at ITI
Bhilai. It is the case of the petitioner that ₹95/- HRA was
deducted from the salary of the petitioner which has been
shown in petitioner's salary slip (Annexure P/6), as such,
the Competent Authority allowed him to retain the quarter
at ITI Bhilai and no quarter was allotted to him at ITI
Mohla, therefore, no penal rent can be recovered from the
petitioner.
2.2. State has filed the reply stating inter-alia that recovery
order is just and proper and within the jurisdiction and
strictly in accordance with law.
3. Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
submit that the petitioner was transferred from ITI Bhilai to
ITI Mohla and at the transferred place, the petitioner was
not granted accommodation and also HRA was recovered
from the salary of the petitioner for the house which was
allotted to the petitioner and retained by the petitioner at
Bhilai, therefore, recovery of penal rent is totally
unjustified.
4. Mr. Sharad Mishra and HAPS Bhatia, learned State
counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel
for the petitioner and submit that deduction of the penal
rent is absolutely justified. They would also submit that
show cause notices were served to the petitioner for
vacating the quarter, but he did not vacate the same and
therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein above and gone
through the records precisely.
6. True, it is that the petitioner was transferred from ITI Bhilai
to ITI Mohla in the month of June, 2009, but admittedly,
the petitioner was not allotted any official accommodation
at ITI Mohla and for the accommodation at Bhilai, HRA was
deducting from the salary of the petitioner upto June, 2017
which is apparent from the salary slip (Annexure P/6). As
such, the petitioner was allowed impliedly to retain the
quarter at ITI Bhilai as he was not allotted the quarter at
ITI Mohla and HRA ₹95/- against the quarter allotted and
occupied by the petitioner at ITI Bhilai was deducted.
Moreover, once the Competent Authority permitted him to
stay in the quarter at ITI Bhilai and the HRA were
deducted, in my considered opinion, penal rent could not
have been recovered as the petitioner stayed with a implied
permission of the Competent Authority for which the
Competent Authority deducted the usual rent from the
salary of the petitioner for the entire period. Furthermore,
as per the State counsel show cause notices were served to
the petitioner for vacating the quarter, however the same is
of no use as the Competent Authority impliedly allowed to
him stay in the suit accommodation and also deducted
HRA from the salary of the petitioner. Accordingly, recovery
order of amount to the tune of ₹4,97,600/-(Annexure P/11)
as well as impugned order (Annexure P/1) are quashed and
the penal rent amount i.e. ₹4,97,600/- which has already
been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner is
directed to be refunded to the petitioner within 30 days
from today.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the instant
writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge
Ankit
