DHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this writ petition the petitioner, who was an employee of the Railway Protection Force, has, inter alia, challenged the action on the part of the respondents of imposing penal rent/damages in respect of the period from 09.03.1992 to 01.07.1994. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that the amount representing the penal rent/damages amounting to Rs. 102592.85 has been withheld by the respondents from the amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner after his superannuation.

(2.) . The facts are that the petitioner was transferred to Delhi on 05.05.1985 and was allotted a class III quarter being 40-CD, Bara More Sarai, Railway Colony, Delhi. This is the premises in question in the present petition. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Ghaziabad on 09.03.1992.

(3.) . Despite transfer to Ghaziabad, the petitioner retained the premises in question on the ground that no accommodation was given to him in Ghaziabad. It is, however, the respondent's contention that the petitioner had allotted the accommodation which was available to him in Ghaziabad to somebody else and thereafter pleaded that there was no accommodation available to him in Ghaziabad. In this petition, I need not go into that question. The only thing that is relevant is that the petitioner was transferred to Ghaziabad on 09.03.1992 and he retained the accommodation in question. On 15.04.1992, a notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question on the ground that he had been transferred to Ghaziabad. The petitioner made a representation and he also cited the Circular dated 28.12.1983 issued by the respondents which indicated that Ghaziabad itself fell within the Zone of Delhi and that accommodation was to be provided to him under pool 'D' which was in Delhi. It is his case that his retention of the premises in question was not illegal or unauthorised. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no alternative accommodation was given nor was his allotment of the premises in question cancelled. In fact, the same premises had not even been allotted to anybody else.