BAJRANG LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed order of the learned Single Judge dt. 26.2.2013. The appellant is an obedient soldier and working as C.T. Cook in C.I.S.F. since 1982 and was posted in 7th Battalion at Jaipur, and he was allotted residential accommodation, Quarter No. 62 Type -A, C.I.S.F. Campus, Amber, Jaipur, where he was residing with his family. In administrative exigency, he was transferred from 7th Battalion, Jaipur to Chandigarh, vide order dt. 10.7.2008, where he joined on 18.7.2008 and under the relevant Rules, Chapter 15 Government Quarters, one can retain Government Quarters on normal rent on transfer to a place outside the station for a period of two months.

(2.) However, he was re -transferred vide order dt. 1.9.2008 to Amber, Jaipur, and he joined pursuant thereto on 4/5.9.2008, however, there was a change in his Battalion. Earlier he was in 7th Battalion and after he was transferred from Chandigarh back to Amber, Jaipur, he was posted in 8th Battalion. Creation of Battalions appears to be for effective administration and for good governance in the Army, but the fact remains that appellant, who was holding the post of C.T. Cook, residential quarter/government accommodation earlier allotted to him while he was in 7th Battalion, but after he was transferred, he was posted in 8th Battalion, the residential quarter which he officially retained he was eligible to retain at least for a period of two months in the meanwhile he was re -transferred vide order 1.9.2008, and posted in 8th Battalion and retained residential accommodation, the respondents considered his retention of residential accommodation after two months as unauthorised occupant and a letter was served for charging penal rent from the petitioner -appellant, vide order dt. 14.7.2011, of Rs. 1,12,297/ - @ Rs. 4506/ - per month, which was challenged by the petitioner -appellant by filing of writ petition which came to be dismissed holding that as he was transferred vide order dt. 10.7.2008 and was not eligible to retain government accommodation and no error was committed by the respondents in charging the penal rent after the expiry of two months under the scheme of Rules.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that as he was re -transferred vide order dt. 1.9.2008 and he joined on 4/5.9.2008, merely because there was a change of posting from Battalion 7th to 8th, that will not non suit the claim of petitioner -appellant for retention of the government accommodation of the category to which he was entitled for, and the decision of respondents in charging penal rent from the appellant holding that he was an unauthorised occupant, was arbitrary action and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This fact remained unnoticed by the learned Single Judge that he was transferred within a short period of 1 1/2 months vide order dt. 1.9.2008, he was eligible to retain and could not be considered of holding the residential accommodation as an unauthorised occupant and be charged with the penal rent, and what has been observed by the learned Single Judge, requires interference of this Court.