Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 312 (HP)

Parma Nand Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-01-07

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Tehsildar, Arki. He was transferred from Arki to Nalagarh, where he joined his duties on 03.08.2001. He was allotted Government accommodation. He moved an application for permission to retain the Government accommodation till the end of academic session, i.e., 30th April, 2002. He has categorically undertaken in his application dated 28.11.2001 that he will vacate the Government accommodation immediately after the academic session was over. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan has sought certain clarifications from the F.C.-Cum-Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh. The F.C.-Cum-Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh informed the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan that the case of the No. petitioner was covered under proviso-III, below explanation-4 of 10(2) of H.P. Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. Petitioner was bound to pay double the normal licence fee after production of certificate from the concerned institutions with regard to academic year. On 21st June, 2002, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nalagarh informed the Tehsildar-Cum-Estate Officer, Arki that as per the decision of F.C.-Cum-Secretary (Revenue), H.P., the licence fee will be charged double of the normal from the petitioner. He was also informed that petitioner has not been allotted Government accommodation in this Sub-Division. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and was transferred back to Arki. However, fact of the matter is that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled vide office order dated 25.09.2003. He was directed to vacate the accommodation within a period of ten days from the date of passing of the order. Petitioner filed a review application on 08.10.2003. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 01.01.2004. 2. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the office orders dated 25.09.2003 and 01.01.2004 are illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the orders dated 25.09.2003 and 01.01.2004. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been allotted Government accommodation while he was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Tehsildar at Arki. He was transferred to Nalagarh, where he joined his duties on 03.08.2001. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been allotted Government accommodation while he was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Tehsildar at Arki. He was transferred to Nalagarh, where he joined his duties on 03.08.2001. As noticed hereinabove, he moved an application to retain the Government accommodation till the academic session was over. He has undertaken to vacate the same after the academic session was over. However, he was promoted and was transferred back to Arki. It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner has also constructed a house in Arki and despite that, he has not vacated the Government accommodation. It has also come in the office order dated 25.09.2003 that the petitioner has never applied for regularization of allotment. Petitioner was required to vacate the Government accommodation as per explanation–III below Rule 10(2) of H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1986. The permissible period for retention of the Government accommodation as per the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1986 is two months after the transfer outside the station. has not vacated the Government accommodation within a period of two months. He was required to move appropriate application for regularization of his retention of Government accommodation. There is no material placed on record to suggest that he had ever applied for regularization of his retention of Government accommodation. He has also constructed his house in Arki town, which he has not denied. His only explanation is that the house was occupied and he was getting a rent of `1800/- per month. He was bound to vacate the premises immediately after the academic session was over. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nalagarh has also informed the Tehsildar-Cum-Estate Officer, Arki that as per the decision of F.C.-Cum-Secretary(Revenue), H.P., dated 30.04.2002, the licence fee will be charged double of the normal. 6. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since double the amount has been deducted, the Government accommodation allotted to his client would be deemed to be regularized. This can not be accepted. The allotment of the Government accommodation is made strictly as per the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. 6. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that since double the amount has been deducted, the Government accommodation allotted to his client would be deemed to be regularized. This can not be accepted. The allotment of the Government accommodation is made strictly as per the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. Since the petitioner has failed to vacate the Government accommodation, the review application filed by him has also been rejected on 01.01.2004, in accordance with law. He was granted a week’s time to vacate the premises, failing which, penal rent of the quarter was to be charged as per Rule 18-A of the H.P. Allotment of Government Residences Rules, 1994. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.