S.MADHAVAN Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed to direct the Respondents to refund a sum of Rs.85,120/- towards market rent recovery already made by violation of Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs order No.27012/42/2009-PF.III dated 14.07.2012 with interest to the petitioner.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as Assistant Commandant at Lalgarh, Midnapur District, West Bengal (Left Wing Extremist affected areas). The family of the petitioner is residing in Quarter No. 8, Type-IV, at 105 RAF, Coimbatore and the said quarters was allotted when he was posted in 105 Bn RAF, Coimbatore. The petitioner was transferred from 105 RAF to 50 Bn, CRPF, Lalgarh on 25.11.2011. Due to risk factor, the petitioner was compelled to retain the quarters allotted to him and his family was continuing to stay in the said quarters. However, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the above said family quarters on or before 31.05.2012. The petitioner made a representation on 19.05.2012 to the 3rd respondent against the notice of vacation of family quarters stating that he is presently deployed in 50 Bn, CRPF, Lalgarh, West Midnapur (W.B), but the petitioner's representation was not considered by the 3rd respondent and another vacation notice was issued on 14.07.2012, intimating that action will be taken for eviction of unauthorized occupants under the Public Premises Act (1971) and market rent recovery will be made from the petitioner. Under these circumstances the petitioner made another representation dated 25.07.2012 to the respondent stating that the petitioner has been performing his duty at 50 Bn, CRPF, Lalgarh, Midnapore West Bengal which falls under the category of LWE areas as per Annexure to the office Memorandum of Ministry of Home Affairs (Naxal Management Division) letter dated 14.12.2010. The 3rd respondent vide order dated 14.02.2013, informed that petitioner that the petitioner's request for retention of family quarters was not considered and asked him to vacate the premises immediately. Therefore, after closing of the academic year, the petitioner has vacated the quarter on 21.05.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he vacated the said quarters while he is serving his duty at 50 Bn, CRPF, Lalgarh, Midnapore, West Bengal the 3rd respondent ordered for recovery of damage rent at the rate of Rs.8512/- per month for the period from 10.08.2012 to 20.05.2013, totalling to the tune of Rs. 85120/- or the date of eviction of the petitioner from the said quarters, whichever is earlier. Eviction proceedings were also contemplated vide order No.27012/42/2009-PF.III dated 14.07.2012. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving in the North East Region and as per clause 'D' of the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.7.09, any person working in Jammu and Kashmir/North East region/Left Wing Extremists (LWE) affected area can retain the quarters. Learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of the court the subsequent proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.11.2015, wherein, in sub- clause 'B' of Para-27, it is found mentioned that 'Retention of family quarters on transfer to J&K, LWE and NE Region is permitted at Group Centre location only'. Pointing out the above, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the petitioner is working in Group Centre location, he is entitled to retain the quarters but contrary to the rules the petitioner was directed to vacate the staff quarters and a sum of Rs.8512/- per month was deducted for the period from 10.08.2012 to 20.05.2013 in all totalling to the tune of Rs. 85120/- as recovery of damage rent, which is in contravention of the regulations. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18184/2019, wherein this Court has allowed a similar relief and, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition.