JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- (a) For quashing and setting aside order no. A.II-1/09-10-Qtr-Accmn dated 06.05.2010 contained in Annexure-4 and Order No. A.II/10-BIDG dated 06.05.2010 contained in Annexure-4/1 so far it relates to the petitioner pursuant to which market rate house rent @ Rs. 4785/- per month is ordered to be recovered w.e.f. 01.05.2010 from the salary of the petitioner for the Quarter No. T/II-68 CTC (T&IT) CRPF Tril Ashram, Dhurwa, Ranchi on the alleged ground of unauthorized occupation. (b) For directing upon the respondent no. 3 for passing necessary order for refund of entire amount being recovered from the salary of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2010 under the head of “Market Rate House Rent.” (c) For directing upon the respondent no. 3 for passing necessary and specific order sanctioning retention of aforesaid Quarter No. T/II-68 CTC (T&IT) CRPF Tril Ashram, Dhurwa, Ranchi in favour of petitioner till his posting at Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected areas or Northeast Region (NE Region) or Jammu & Kashmir. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was posted at CTC (T&IT) CRPF, Tril Ashram Dhurwa, Ranchi from July, 2004 to July, 2008 and was allotted government accommodation Qtr. No. T/II-68 CTC (T&IT) CRPF at Tril Ashram Dhurwa Ranchi. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to 69 BN CRPF Kolkata and posted with Dett. 69 BN CRPF at Purulia, West Bengal which was a LWE affected area. Thereafter, in the month of March, 2009 he was again transferred and posted at Imphal (Manipur) and subsequently, transferred and posted in 159 BN CRPF at Gaya ITI College Complex, Gaya Bihar w.e.f. June 2010 which was also notified a LWE affected area. 4. Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by letter no. A.II-2/2008-09 Adm.1 dated 28.07.2009, it has been provided by para 2(d) that “Maximum retention period of 05 years on posting to J&K/NE Region/LWE areas as per Rule 5(25) of CRPF Family Accommodation Rules, 2008 is withdrawn and all such personnel may be allowed to retain the family quarter till their actual posting in those areas. He further submits that by letter no. 27012/42/2009 PF.III dated 14.07.2010, Govt. He further submits that by letter no. 27012/42/2009 PF.III dated 14.07.2010, Govt. of India gave sanction of extension of the facility of retention of government accommodation at the last place of posting for Central Paramilitary Force (CPF) personnel deployed in LWE affected areas on payment of flat/normal license fee. He further submits that the petitioner duly applied to respondent no. 3 vide its letter dated 04.03.2010 and on subsequent dates while posted at Imphal (Manipur) for retention of government family Quarter No. T/II-68 CTC (T&IT) CRPF at Tril Ashram Dhurwa Ranchi, since he was entitled to retain the same up to March, 2010 only. However, the respondent authority has calculated the market rate house rent @ Rs. 4785/- per month and the same is ordered to be recovered w.e.f.01.05.2010 from the salary of the petitioner for the aforesaid quarter on the alleged ground of unauthorized occupation. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument by submitting that the action of the respondent for charging market rent w.e.f. 01.05.2010 and further direction to recover the said amount from the salary of the petitioner is totally arbitrary and against the specific provision of law as enshrined in Annexure-2 to the writ application, wherein it has been stated that the personnel posted in LWE affected areas will also be allowed to retain the accommodation already retained by them. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case, wherein it has been stated that the competent authority has considered to extend the allotment of government family quarter to the petitioner up to 31.03.2010 i.e. end of academic session for education of his wards. However, petitioner has not vacated the government quarter and again requested for extension of allotment of said government quarter up to March, 2011 due to his posting in Northeast Region, which was not considered by the competent authority and several vacation notices were issued i.e. on 26.02.2010, 29.03.2010, 03.04.2010, 07.04.2010, 17.04.2010 and 22.04.2010 with direction to vacate the government quarter. 6. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted at CTC (T&IT) CRPF, Tril Ashram Dhurwa, Ranchi from July, 2004 and was allotted the quarter in question on 20.11.2004 for a period of three years up to 19.11.2007 and thereafter his request for retention of quarter was accepted from time to time till 31.03.2010. However, the petitioner failed to vacate the government quarter even after extension for retaining the same up till 31.03.2010 and he has neglected various vacation notices and forced with this situation the DIGP-cum-Estate Officer issued orders to recover market rate rent @ Rs. 4785 per month w.e.f. 01.05.2010 from the salary of the petitioner in accordance with sub Section (2) of Section-7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1971. He further submits that the respondent institution is already facing acute shortage of government quarters and the personnel posted in this institution are coming from Jammu and Kashmir, Northeast Region and LWE affected areas for static posting and want to stay with their families. Hence, the respondent institution is bound to provide government quarters to the personnel coming from above areas instead of personnel transferred out from this institution to other places. Learned ASGI reiterated that the case of the petitioner was considered several times and he was allowed extension up to till 31.03.2010. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant application deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner was allotted the quarter in question on 20.11.2004 for a period of three years up to 19.11.2007. However, the petitioner did not vacated the allotted government quarter and time and again requested for extension for allotment of the said government quarter. Pursuant to his request, the competent authority has considered to extend his allotment up to 31.03.2010 i.e. end of the academic sessions of education of his wards. However, petitioner did not vacated the quarter and again requested for extension of allotment due to his posting in Northeast region, which was rejected by the competent authority and several vacation notices were issued to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the respondent authority has considered the case of the petitioner for almost three years. However, when the petitioner failed to vacate the quarter, it is only then the respondent no. 3 issued an order to recover the rent @ Rs. 4785/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2010, which was the market rent of the government quarter assessed by CPWD vide their Letter No. 23 (106)/RCD/2010/658 dated 29.04.2010. However, when the petitioner failed to vacate the quarter, it is only then the respondent no. 3 issued an order to recover the rent @ Rs. 4785/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2010, which was the market rent of the government quarter assessed by CPWD vide their Letter No. 23 (106)/RCD/2010/658 dated 29.04.2010. It also appears that the respondent institution are having altogether 269 quarters only and they are facing acute shortage of government quarters, which has been specifically stated at para-7 of the counter affidavit which has not been controverted by the petitioner in his rejoinder. The only contention of the petitioner is that his case is covered by the CRPF Family Accommodation Rule. However, from the record it appears that as per the Rule, the petitioner was given extension for almost three years; as such, in my considered opinion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby market rate house rent @ Rs. 4785/- per month is ordered to be recovered w.e.f. 01.05.2010 from the salary of the petitioner for the quarter in question. 8. It goes without saying that the government quarters is not for any individual government official rather for the officials at large. Further, the respondent institution is already facing acute shortage of government quarters and the personnel posted in this institution are coming from Jammu and Kashmir, Northeast Region and LWE affected areas for static posting and want to stay with their families; even then the petitioner’s request was considered by the respondent authority for almost three years. As such, the respondents were fully justified in taking market rate rent as fixed by the CPWD. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and as a result, the instant application is dismissed.