PRAMOD KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court impugning the order dated 21.04.2012 (Annexure P -17), vide which petitioner No.1 has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ - as penal rent for over stay in the official accommodation which he was required to vacate after his request for extension to retain the accommodation was declined by the competent authority, i.e., the Principal and Director, Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai Sonepat -respondent No.3.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that same dated order in same terms has been passed with regard to petitioner No.2, wherein the demand was of Rs. 1,68,000/ -. Challenge is also posed to the order dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure P -25) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Department of Sports & Youth Affairs, Chandigarh -respondent No.2, whereby a speaking order has been passed in compliance with the Division Bench judgment dated 24.08.2012 of this Court in LPA No.1225 of 2012, vide which the request of the petitioner for waiver of the penal rent imposed upon them has been rejected. Communication dated 27.12.2013 (Annexure P -27), vide which the District Education Officer, Mewat has been requested by the Principal and Director, Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai Sonepat for recovery of Rs. 1,68,000/ - from Shri V.S. Shekhawat and Rs.1,80,000/ - from Shri P.K.Roy, petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively has also been challenged.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. Present is not a case where any mercy should be shown to the petitioners, who have, all through, been on one pretext or the other making an effort to retain the official accommodations allotted to them while they were appointed in the Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai Sonepat. Even after the dismissal of the writ petitions, which were preferred by them as also the dismissal of the appeal, referred to above, petitioners had been insisting upon and have now approached this Court by assailing the action of the respondents which they have initiated against them, which has been found to be in accordance with the statutory rules. It is apparent from the order dated 01.04.2013 (Annexure P -25) that the rules only contemplate extension for additional two months at normal rent and that too on medical ground or the ground of education of the children. Thereafter, no further extension can be granted to them without charging the penal rent. The order having been passed in accordance with the statutory rules does not call for any interference by this Court.