Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3124 (ALL)

Harpal Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-10-13

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The appellant had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the learned Single Judge for challenging an order dated 28 May 2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Generation Division, Harduaganj Thermal Power Station, Kashimpur, Aligarh rejecting his claim. The claim of the appellant was in respect of a deduction on account of penal rent. The amount deducted was Rs.48,796/- for the period from 01 July 1986 to 22 January 1989 and Rs.15,965/- for the period from 01 October 1996 until 12 December 1997. In an exhaustive consideration of the issue, the learned Single Judge has had due regard to the actual computation and to the relevant Government Orders holding the field. The learned Single Judge has found no reason to interfere with the deduction so made. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was transferred on two occasions and since the allotment was not cancelled, the appellant continued to retain the official accommodation particularly because no accommodation was made available to him at the place of transfer. 3. There is a fundamental fallacy in the submission. There was no occasion for the Government to cancel an allotment once an order was passed transferring the appellant. Upon the transfer of the appellant, allotment of accommodation made to him necessarily came to an end. Allotment of accommodation is made since the officer is posted at a particular place of posting. There was no reason for the appellant to continue to retain the accommodation unlawfully despite his transfer from the place of posting. On the actual computation, the learned Single Judge has elaborately considered the entire matter and no submission in that regard is made in the appeal at hearing. On the issue of interest on payment of retiral dues, the learned Single Judge has found that it was the appellant who had been guilty of delay in submitting a no dues certificate. No ground to entertain the appeal is made out. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.