MOTIRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to the cadre of Superintendent of Police. He was transferred to Bangalore from Mysore in the month of October, 1983. On his transfer to Bangalore, a transit accommodation is allotted to him in Jeevan Bhimanagar in the Quarters bearing No. C. 70. Thereafter, he has now been transferred to Gulburga. Pursuant to that he has taken charge of his office at Gulbarga on 26-10-1984. On his transfer, he has made a representation before the State Government for retaining the quarters No. C. 70 at Jeevan Bhimanagar upto the end of April, 1985, on the ground that his children are attending the school at Bangalore and he having been transferred in the middle of the academic year, it will be difficult for the children to shift over to another school in the fag end of the academic year, hence, he has prayed for permitting him to continue to occupy the quarters in question till the end of April, 1985. This request has been rejected by the Government on the ground that the accommodation allotted to him is transit accommodation, therefore, the benefit of academic year is not available to him as it is available only to regular allottees.

(2.) Sri Appa Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that rule 10 of the Allotment of Government Quarters at Jeevan Bhimanagar Township, Vasanthanagar and Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore, under the Rental Housing Scheme (Revised) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as interpreted by this Court in W.P.. 12111 / 77 decided on 5-10-1982, applies even to transit accommodation also. On the contrary, it is contended by Sri Abdul Khader, learned High Court Government Pleader, that regarding transit accommodation rule-6 of the Rules is a complete code in itself and it governs the penal rent as well as vacation of the premises; therefore, rule-10 of the Rules is not applicable to such accommodation in respect of the matters covered by Rule 6 ; that the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition does not govern the present case.

(3.) Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the present case is governed by rule 6 or 10 of the Rules.