Y N MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Tracer in Public Works Department (B and R) Region-I, Hoshangabad by order dated 13-4-1964. He was transferred to P. W. D. Sub-Division Pachmarhi. With the passage of time, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Draftsman by order dated 27-6-1994 and was transferred and posted at Public Works Department, Sub-Division No. 1, Harda from Pachmarhi. He was relieved from Pachmarhi on 2-8-1994. As pleaded at the time of his transfer, his daughter was studying in Class IX at the Government Girls Higher Secondary School at Pachmarhi. As the admissions for the academic year 1994-95 had closed at Harda, the petitioner retained the government quarter at Pachmarhi and he submitted an application on 23-11-1994 for permission to retain the quarter beyond stipulated period of six months. According to the writ petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer did not forward the application to the Executive Engineer for necessary orders but issued a memo dated 1-12-1994 (Annexure A-4), stating that the petitioner had made erroneous statement with regard to his daughter studying in the aforesaid school. Certain allegations have been made with regard to vindictive attitude of the Sub- Divisional Officer. It is contended in the petition that the executive Engineer informed him on 12-6-1996 (Annexure A-6) that the petitioner did not vacate the quarter after his transfer to Harda in accordance with the instructions as contained in memo dated 21-5-1993, therefore, he was liable to pay market rate fixed for H-type quarter with effect from 3-8-1994 and accordingly a sum of Rs. 7,863/- would be realized from him. It is urged that no order was passed on application dated 9-1-1995. After receipt of the communication from the Executive Engineer, the petitioner wrote to the executive Engineer on 12-6-1996 expressing the reasons how he needed the quarter at Pachmarhi and the difficulties faced by him in regard to education of his daughter. He submitted the representation dated 25-4-1997 assailing the recovery of Rs. 7,863/- vide Annexure A-8 and prayed that the rent be computed as per Fundamental Rule 45-B and balance be refunded to him. Certain allegations have been made in the petition which need not be stated being irrelevant for the purpose of the case. Emphasis has been laid on fundamental Rule 45-B; and in that backdrop, a prayer has been made for quashing the order of recovery dated 12-6-1996.

(2.) A reply has been filed by the answering respondent contending inter alia that the petitioner was promoted by order dated 24-6-1994 and he was relieved and posted at Harda on 3-8-1994. It is submitted that an application was made by the petitioner for giving permission to retain Government accommodation upto July, 1995 on the ground that his daughter was studying. On verification, it was found that the name of the petitioner's daughter was removed from the school on 22-11-1994 and accordingly, the petitioner was served with the show-cause notice marked as Annexure R-2. Thereafter, for the reasons set forth in the return that there is no circular which enables an employee to retain quarter after his transfer. Other allegations made in the petition have also been replied to by the respondents.

(3.) HEARD Mr. A. P. Shroti, learned Counsel for the petitioner and mr. K. S. Thakur, learned Counsel for the State.