M C MITTAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTERALIA contending that after his retirement from service a sum of Rs.30,007/- has been deducted from the gratuity and seeking refund of the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) IT is seen from the record that in the year 1995 petitioner was working in the Industrial Training Institute in Koni, Bilaspur. While so posted he was alloted a government quarter for which he was required to pay monthly rent of Rs.65/- and Rs.40/- towards electricity charges, this amount was being recovered from him upto July, 1995, as is evident from L.P.C. Annexure P-1. However, the petitioner was transferred from Koni Bilaspur to Balaghat, it seems that petitioner did not vacate the quarter, even though he was relieved for joining duties at Balaghat. After being relieved from Koni Bilaspur on 31.7.1995 the petitioner joined duty only in the year 1998 at Balaghat and for a larger period of time, after his relieving, he retained the government quarter at Bilaspur, as a result thereof the competent authority passed an order Annexure R-5 on 3.5.2000 recovering penal rent from the petitioner for occupying the quarter in an unauthorized manner for the period indicated in Annexure R-5. It is case of petitioner now before this Court that he was sick and, therefore, could not joined duties at Balaghat, he was relieved while he was on leave and as relieving itself was illegal he says that he is entitled to retain the quarter and consequently challenges the recovery of penal rent, mainly on the ground that in the L.P.C. Annexure P-1 recovery of rent is already indicated and any further recovery now contrary to indication made in L.P.C. is incorrect. Accordingly, contending that the respondents have permitted the petitioner to join Balaghat in the year 1998 by condoning the entire act of not reporting in time and now the action impugned is unsustainable, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.

(3.) IN view of above it is not proper for this Court to interfere into the matter, however if petitioner feels that respondents have condoned his act of not joining on the transferred post within the reasonable time and, therefore, due to aforesaid act of respondents he is not liable to pay penal rent, petitioner may approach the competent authority who is to take a decision in the matter and it is for the competent authority to exercise discretion in such matter and grant benefit to the petitioner. In this writ petition in the absence of any statutory rules or regulations or any malafide being made out penal rent recovered in accordance to rule for retention of quarter for the period not permissible, cannot be interfered with by this Court.