Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 785 (CAL)

Chanchal Sarkar v. Union of India

2013-10-08

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
Judgment : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw the order dated February 15, 2003, an order directing the respondents to sanction and release the arrear of house rent allowance and for other reliefs. The petitioner has been working in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF, for short) and his wife is a permanent employee of the Government of West Bengal. The wife of the petitioner has to attend her shifting duties from her rented house near Dankuni railway station where she stays with her husband. Because of the inconveniences faced by the wife of the petitioner the petitioner had applied before the respondent no. 5 for grant of out living permission with house rent allowance. Although the said prayer was initially allowed by a letter dated July 30, 1999 the Respondent authority subsequently cancelled the permission for staying outside with house rent allowance. The petitioner moved a writ petition in the year 1999 which was disposed of by a learned single judge directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a given time. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents should have given him residential accommodation in accordance with the scale of pay of the petitioner and ought not to have cancelled the valid allotment of the entitled type of residential accommodation. Ultimately he filed another writ petition before this court which was disposed of by a learned single judge by an order dated June 17, 2002. By the said order the petitioner was granted liberty to apply for official accommodation for the members of his family at Dankuni Coal Complex commensurate with the scale of pay. In case such application is made within four weeks from the date the respondents were positively directed to allot him an appropriate accommodation in accordance with his entitlement within a period of four weeks. In case this is not done the petitioner would be paid house rent allowance on the expiry of the stipulated period for which the petitioner would be entitled to make a further representation and in case such an application is made by the writ petitioner the respondents authorities were directed to consider such application for arrear of house rent allowance. By an order dated July 31, 2002 the respondent no. By an order dated July 31, 2002 the respondent no. 6 intimated the petitioner that a ‘C’ type quarter as per the entitlement had been allotted to him at the Dankuni Coal Complex. The petitioner had taken possession of the same. The petitioner alleges that he was initially allotted a ‘C’ type quarter. He had gone to his native place on account of his father’s death. He had taken possession of the quarter during his leave period and locked the said quarter. After expiry of his leave when he resumed his duties he found that the authorities put another lock in front of the gate of the ‘C’ type quarter. The petitioner subsequently came to learn that this allotment of ‘C’ type quarter in his favour had been cancelled and he had been allotted ‘B’ type quarter. Thereafter he made several representations. He made a representation praying for releasing his arrear of house rent allowance with effect from September 1, 1999 to August 19, 2002. After giving a hearing the respondent no. 5 herein by an order dated February 15, 2003 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for arrear of house rent allowance. This order has been assailed in the present writ petition. The respondents nos. 1 to 7 have used an affidavit-in-opposition being affirmed by the respondent no. 5. According to them as per the relevant rules the members of the CISF are to live within the unit and 45 per cent. of the total accommodation as provided by the unit is available for family accommodation to the non-gazetted officers. As the family accommodation was not available the petitioner applied for leave to live outside the unit. It was initially allowed. But as after sometime the rent free accommodation was available the same was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner by his representation on August 7, 1999 prayed for permission to live outside with the house rent allowance and the same was rejected. The answering respondents have also taken a point that the rules relied on by the petitioner are not meant for the CISF. The accommodation to the CISF personnel are not provided by the Directorate of Estates of the Central Government. The CISF unit at Dankuni has been provided with family accommodation to the tune of 45 per cent. of the total strength which is allotted according to seniority. The accommodation to the CISF personnel are not provided by the Directorate of Estates of the Central Government. The CISF unit at Dankuni has been provided with family accommodation to the tune of 45 per cent. of the total strength which is allotted according to seniority. When an incumbent is provided with an accommodation inside the unit house rent allowance is not provided. As the accommodation provided to the petitioner was not occupied by him and he was on leave from August 29, 1999 to September 15, 1999 Sri P. K. Sharma, Inspector, was allotted said accommodation cancelling the accommodation in favour of the petitioner. So far as the petitioner’s challenge to the order dated February 15, 2003 is concerned the respondent claimed that his prayer for house rent allowance had been rejected as he had voluntarily stayed outside the unit premises on his own. They had prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply largely reiterating the stand taken in the petition. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after going through the writ petition and the order impugned I do not find any infirmity in the order to interfere with the same. The concerned authority had given personal hearing to the petitioner and disposed of the representation made by him. It appears that after his transfer to the concerned unit he was allowed only temporarily to live outside with his family on his prayer. This was done only because the family accommodation at that point of time was not available. The moment this became available family accommodation was offered to him and the permission to live outside with house rent allowance was withdrawn. The respondent no. 5 had observed in the order that when residential accommodation is provided to a member of the force he is required to stay there subject to such accommodation and terms as may be specified by the competent authority. Since following the CISF Rules 45 per cent. family accommodation had been provided by the concerned public sector undertaking no house rent allowance is permissible in the present case. The said respondent had further found that the ‘C’ type quarter which was initially allotted to the petitioner had been cancelled for administrative reasons. Since following the CISF Rules 45 per cent. family accommodation had been provided by the concerned public sector undertaking no house rent allowance is permissible in the present case. The said respondent had further found that the ‘C’ type quarter which was initially allotted to the petitioner had been cancelled for administrative reasons. The ‘B’ type family accommodation which was allotted to him was never occupied by the petitioner and he continued to stay outside on his own. The order impugned in the writ petition is well reasoned and logical. The petitioner’s grievance about the cancellation of the allotment of a ‘C’ type quarter in his favour does not appear to have any substance as the administrative compulsion had necessitated the authorities to issue such cancellation. He has not challenged the existence of this administrative reason in the writ petition. It has been specifically mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition that the industrial undertaking in question provided only ‘C’ type of family accommodations and since the quarter earmarked for the Inspector was vacant the same was allotted to the petitioner. This has not been specifically denied by the petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply, but he has nonetheless repeated his stand that he was entitled to ‘C’ type of quarter. The grounds taken by the petitioner in assailing the order impugned does not appear to be very convincing. When a quarter initially allotted to an employee has to be reallocated to somebody for administrative compulsions, the incumbent cannot insist on a certain type of accommodation and a right to get the house rent allowance for not occupying the quarter allotted to him. The petitioner’s assertion that the allotment of quarter is according to the scale of pay and the petitioner is entitled to get ‘C’ type quarter has not been substantiated by reference to any rule or document. Moreover, when the petitioner was directed to come back to the unit and to stay in the quarter given to him he had no justifiable reason to stay outside. This is all the more so when his permission to live outside with house rent allowance was withdrawn. After this order he cannot ask for the house rent allowance for the said period. I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.