(1.) THE petitioner has preferred the present petition for appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7.9.2001 � Annexure-A, whereby the communication is made that the amount of Rs.62,541/- be recovered from the salary and allowances of the petitioner.
(2.) THE short facts are that the father of the petitioner, who was working as wireman with the State Government was allotted quarter of J-Type No.86/1 in Sector 21 at Gandhinagar, which is a quarter available to the lowest category of the Government Employee. He expired on 2.3.1983 and after the death of the father, the mother of the petitioner, Nasimbanu Gulamhusen Miyana was offered appointment on compassionate basis. Unfortunately, the mother of the petitioner also expired on 17.9.1992 and at the relevant point of time, major member of the family was sister of the petitioner Mumtaz Gulamhusen Miyana and other two sisters as well as petitioner, all were minor. As per the respondent, after the death of the mother, they were required to vacate the quarter, but it appears that the family members of the petitioner continued to occupy the quarter and thereafter, the respondent authorities assessed the market rent of the quarter at Rs.800/- per month and the recovery for the period from 1992 till 1999 was sought to be effected. As per the petitioner, when it came to their notice in the year 1999 that the Government had assessed the market rent at Rs.800/- per month and they were required to hand over the possession of the quarter, they immediately vacated the quarter. It appears that thereafter, as the petitioner became major, he was offered employment vide order dated 24.3.2000 and since then he was working. In the year 2001, the aforesaid impugned communication came to be issued and under these circumstances, the present petition.
(3.) MR RV Desai, learned AGP for the respondents points out letter dated 29.4.2002 (Annexure "F") whereby the petitioner had given his no objection for recovery of the amount of rent for the quarters in question from the petitioner's salary in instalments spread over 15 years. Mr Adeshra points out from para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit that he was required to give such a writing for fear of facing unemployment.