JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that he has been transferred from District Jail, Bareilly to Fatehgarh on 9.8.2008 but despite of having been granted time to vacate the official accommodation at Bareilly he has not vacated the same and in the circumstances the Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2008 requiring the petitioner to pay a penal rent in accordance with the rules. Counsel for petitioner could not point out any illegality in the said order but submit that on account of his family problems he could not vacate the official accommodation, therefore, he may be allowed to retain the official accommodation till the end of the present session. 2. The order dated 16.10.2008 was passed an year ago and the petitioner chose not to vacate the official accommodation at the end of Session 2008-09 itself but continue to retain the same and now seeks indulgence from this Court to continue his unauthorised occupation of the premises in question till the end of the present session which shows that the conduct of the petitioner is neither bona fide nor otherwise in accordance with rule. 3. Whether an official who has been transferred from one place to another has a right to retain the official accommodation at the transferred place or not has been considered by this Court time and again. In respect to the employees of the State Government rules have been framed namely, Fundamental Rule 45 read with subsidiary Rule 18 and 18A to 18C, considering in the light of the above Rules a Division Bench (of which I was also a Member) in Ram Paras Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another, 2008(3) ADJ 700 : 2008(2) ESC 1491 observed as under : “A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that available accommodations are not sufficient to meet the requirement of the serving Government servants, who are actually holding the post, and a large number of government servants in service are waiting in queue for their turn to get official accommodation after it is vacated by the Government servant, who has ceased to hold the post or is transferred under the Rules.” 4. Similarly in the context of the employees of the Central Government again a Division Bench considered the matter in Union of India and others v. Rajeev Kumar Tyagi and another, 2008(1) ADJ 673 and this Court observed in paras 8 and 9 of the judgment as under : “8. A government servant holding a transferable post cannot be allowed to retain official accommodation at two places, particularly at the place wherefrom he has been transferred. Further he cannot retain official accommodation at the place of transfer beyond the period permissible in Rules. No provision has been shown to us by respondent No. 1 that he could have retained official accommodation at Rampur also despite the fact that he has been allotted official accommodation at Moradabad. 9. . . . . . . Moreover, allotment or non-allotment of official accommodation at the place of posting does not vest any right upon the Government employee to retain official residence wherefrom he has been transferred. Irrespective of the fact that whether the government servant has been or not has been allotted official accommodation at the place where he has been transferred, he has to vacate the official accommodation at the place wherefrom he has been transferred after the period permitted under the Rules is expired.” 5. Further in para 10 of the judgment in Rajeev Kumar Tyagi (supra) the Court held : “10. In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that the respondent No. 1 was not entitled either under the Rules or otherwise to retain official accommodation at Rampur once he has been transferred to Moradabad and joined there at and the period prescribed in the Rules for retention of official accommodation at Rampur has already expired. Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot sustain.” 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he may be allowed atleast three months further time to vacate the premises. 7. Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot sustain.” 6. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he may be allowed atleast three months further time to vacate the premises. 7. I may add at this stage that any indulgence in such matters amounts to denying legal right of another Government employee who has been transferred in place of petitioner and is entitled for allotment of official accommodation inasmuch as continuance of unauthorised occupation of official accommodation by the transferred employee results in denial of legal allotment to another employee who is otherwise entitled in law and any indulgence permitting such unauthorised occupation to continue for some further time results in denial of legal right of another employee which ought not to be permitted by this Court being a Court of Law, equity and justice. This Court in order to show sympathy to one employee by permitting him to retain official accommodation would deny the legal right of another employee and, therefore, in such matters more care is required while passing the orders. I am conscious of the above facts and the legal exposition of law and, therefore, in my view no such indulgence need be granted. The writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. Dismissed. ————