AMRENDRA KUMAR SINHA SON OF LATE LAXMI NARAYAN SINHA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA TILAK NAGAR, STATION ROAD, BEGUSARAI, P.S. & P.O. BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the office order dated 04.10.2013 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4) whereby penal rent @ of Rs. 10,260.00 per month has been imposed upon the petitioner for alleged occupation of quarter after retirement from the month of March 2012 to Sept. 2013 amounting to Rs. 2,35,980.00 directed to be recovered from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner vide letter written to the Accountant General dated 10.02.2014, and the Accountant General vide letter dated 15.03.2014 directed the Treasury Officer, Hazaribagh for recovery of the aforesaid amount from the amount of gratuity of the petitioner, and petitioner has further prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus, commanding upon the respondent no.4 to make payment of arrears of salary for the month of Sept. 2004 to Dec. 2005 and from the month of Jan. 2011 to Dec. 2012 on account of promotion granted to the petitioner under ACP Scheme.

(2.) The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Forester in Hazaribagh Forest Division on 01.09.1980. The petitioner applied for Government quarter, but the same was not allotted to him. He was orally permitted to live in a shed by the then D.F.O, Hazaribagh Forest Division in the year 1983. The petitioner continued to live in the said shed even after his retirement i.e. on 31.01.2012 because of the fact that his post retirements dues were not finalized. He also requested the respondent no.4 for payment of arrear of salary and other retirement benefits but instead of making payment he was issued notice dated 15.07.2013 vide Annexure-1 to the writ application for vacation of quarters. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted representation dated 25.07.2013 requesting the respondents for payment so that he would vacate quarters but the respondent no.4 declared the petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant and imposed penal rent @ Rs. 10,260.00 per month from the month of March 2012 to Sept. 2013 and directed to recover a sum of Rs. 2,35,980.00 from the pensionary benefit of the petitioner vide office order dated 04.10.2013, which is impugned in the writ application. On receipt of the impugned order, the petitioner filed application before respondent no.4 on 20.11.2013 requesting him to allow to continue to the said shed till his outstanding dues are cleared as evident from Annexure-4 of the writ petition. Since, no response was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted representation before the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh on 06.03.2014 for redressal of his grievance and on receipt of the said representation the respondent no. 3 forwarded the same to respondent no.4 for the needful. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 wrote the respondent no. 5 for revision of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and at the same time requested respondent no. 5 for recovery of the aforesaid amount from pensionary benefits and accordingly, respondent no. 5 by revising the post retirement benefits directed the Treasury Officer, Hazaribagh to recover the aforesaid amount from the gratuity of the petitioner as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondents, the petitioner left with no other efficacious and alternative remedy, approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the imposition of penal rent for occupation of quarters in question is not justified, when the said quarter is not a quarter rather a shed and without petitioner being declared as an unauthorised occupant as defined under Sarkari Awas Avantan Kiraya Vasooli Avam Bedakhli Niymavali, 2004, vide Rule 110 of the Jharkhand Service Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order has been passed without following the provision of Jharkhand Government Premises (Allotment, Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act 2002 and also without following the principles of natural justice, therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed.