JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents in the Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The petitioner No.964650165 Const./GD Uddhab Saikia was initially posted at the CISF Unit, OPS Noonmati and was allotted a family quarter bearing Quarter No.A-76 on 01.06.2016 by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit OPS Noonmati as per order No.PR-13013/CISF/QM/OPS(N)/FA/2016/1131 dated 01.06.16. The petitioner along with his family members are residing in the said quarter and his son is also attending the St. Francis De' Sales Higher Secondary School, Narengi, Guwahati for the purpose of his education. By the order dated 31.03.2018, the petitioner was posted in the CISF Unit NALCO, Damonjodi which is stated to be located in the State of Orissa and accordingly the movement order dated 06.04.2018 was issued. The petitioner complied with the movement order and joined his services in the CISF Unit NALCO, Damonjodi. It is stated that the CISF Unit NALCO at Damonjodi where the petitioner was posted is located at a left wing extremist infested area and the armed personnel are required to maintain vigil and remain alert all the time. Considering the safety and security of his family on account of his posting in such area, it was neither suitable for the petitioner to take his family members along nor any appropriate residential quarter had been provided to him in his place of posting at CISF Unit NALCO, Damonjodi. In the resultant consequence, the authorities by different orders had extended the residential quarter allotted to the family members of the petitioner. 3. But, ultimately by the order dated 04.05.2019 of the Assistant Commandant CISF Unit NALCO, Damonjodi, the petitioner was imposed a penalty rent for occupying the residential premises amounting to Rs.50,000/- to be paid in equal number of installments for the period from 01.06.2018 to 31.03.2019. The said communication by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit NALCO, Damonjodi was made pursuant to a communication No.PR-17012/CISF/NALCO/D/QM/19-1150 dated 04.05.2019 purportedly made by the authorities of the CISF Unit OPS Noonmati, where the petitioner was previously posted. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted. 4. The said communication by the Assistant Commandant, CISF Unit NALCO, Damonjodi was made pursuant to a communication No.PR-17012/CISF/NALCO/D/QM/19-1150 dated 04.05.2019 purportedly made by the authorities of the CISF Unit OPS Noonmati, where the petitioner was previously posted. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is instituted. 4. By the interim order dated 02.08.2019, the recovery of the said rent as well as the requirement of the petitioner to vacate the residential quarter at CISF Unit OPS Noonmati was stayed. The respondents referred to the CISF Circular No.10/16 dated 13.09.2016 pertaining to the subject ‘retention of the family quarter on transfer’. The opening paragraph of the circular reads that a number of requests are being received at CISF HQrs seeking retention/extension of family accommodation by the CISF personnel at the old Unit/Formation and such requests are generally for ward’s education(Class-X and XII), medical treatment, posting to NER, J&K/LWE areas and various other personal issues. 5. The Circular accordingly provides for guidelines that upon an individual’s request after regular transfer, approval for retention of house up to a maximum period of 03 months can be given by the Unit Commander. Clause 3(iii) specifically provides that Sector IG/Zonal DIG to judiciously scrutinize all applications/requests for extension/retention of house beyond 03 months as mentioned at para(i) above and the maximum period of extension/retention shall not exceed 01 year beyond the initial 03 months granted by the Unit Commander. It is stated that the petitioner was transferred by the order dated 06.04.2018 and as provided in the guidelines, the permissible period of one year is over and therefore, the petitioner is required to vacate the residential quarter allotted to him. 6. We have noticed that the expression in Clause 3(iii) of the Circular dated 13.09.2016 is that the Sector IG/Zonal DIG to ‘judiciously scrutinize’ all applications/requests of the residential accommodation for retention. The very expression ‘judicious scrutinize’ would mean that there is a necessity on the part of the authorities concerned to give a well considered, discreet or a widely circumspect application of mind to any such application/request for retention of a residential accommodation beyond the regular entitlement. The very expression ‘judicious scrutinize’ would mean that there is a necessity on the part of the authorities concerned to give a well considered, discreet or a widely circumspect application of mind to any such application/request for retention of a residential accommodation beyond the regular entitlement. A mere technical interpretation that the Circular provides for a period of three months to retain the accommodation after a transfer, which again, on a request can be extended by a period of one year and in any case where the period of three months plus one year had already gone by, no further consideration to be given cannot be said to be an approach to a 'judiciously scrutinize' of the application/request. The word ‘judicious’ as per the Black’s Law Dictionary means a well considered, or discreet or widely circumspect application of the Rules. If the Rules provide for an accommodation to be retained for a period of three months after the transfer and thereafter by another one year, on request, a well considered, discreet or widely circumspect application of the Rules would be that if no further consideration is given to consider whether a further retention would be justified in the facts and circumstances as may be presented, in our view, it cannot be said that ‘judicious scrutinize’ of the application was made. If the purpose of the Circular was that no further retention can be allowed after three months and the subsequent extendable one year i.e. a total of 15 months, it would have been a case of a mechanical calculation of the period for which the accommodation was availed and there would not have been any further requirement of any ‘judicious scrutinize’ of the application. In the instant case, we have noticed that the petitioner was posted in such a location, where no residential quarter has been allotted to him and possibly the education of the children of the petitioner has also been adversely affected. In the instant case, we have noticed that the petitioner was posted in such a location, where no residential quarter has been allotted to him and possibly the education of the children of the petitioner has also been adversely affected. The CISF Circular No.10/16 dated 13.09.2016 nowhere mentions that even in respect of such postings, where no accommodation can be provided, the person concerned would have to leave his family behind and no alternative safe accommodation would be provided at any other place and the family would have to be exposed to live in an unsecured environment, even though Circular No.10/16 dated 13.09.2016 provides that the provisions thereof for retention of accommodation for three months, extendable by another one year would also be applicable to a posting to NER, J&K/LWE areas also. 7. It is an admitted position of the respondents that under the service conditions of the petitioner, he is entitled to residential accommodation. 8. Mr. H Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents in the CISF Unit seeks to justify the view taken by the authorities by stating that because of the aforesaid inconvenience caused, the petitioner is paid double HRA. Double the HRA can mean that some additional amount is paid to the petitioner so that he can afford the financial expenses for a suitable private accommodation and according to the respondents the same would be compensatory in nature for being not provided with any suitable residential accommodation at the place of actual posting. 9. Considering only from the financial point of view, the said stand may be acceptable, but at the same time, a residential accommodation is provided to the staff of the armed forces also for another reason that they are able to live in a secured environment, where they may not be exposed to the risk that they otherwise may have to face because of the nature of the duties they perform. From such point of view, if it is the stand of the respondents that by payment of double HRA, the requirement of the family to also live in a secured environment can also be met, we have to conclude that the same would be unacceptable. From such point of view, if it is the stand of the respondents that by payment of double HRA, the requirement of the family to also live in a secured environment can also be met, we have to conclude that the same would be unacceptable. If the authorities find it to be logistically difficult to allow the personnel to retain the earlier accommodation in the place where he was posted, it would also be up to the authorities to provide other similar and suitable accommodation. 10. It is stated that in the meantime, the petitioner had already been transferred to CIST UNIT at Port Blair on 05.07.2021. No information is available as to whether any suitable accommodation has in the meantime been provided to the petitioner at his new place of posting at Port Blair, where he had already joined. We are also of the view that the armed forces are subjected to extreme risk in course of national duties towards the nation and from such point of view, the nation also has a duty to protect them and to see that they are not unduly inconvenienced. 11. If the petitioner has already been transferred to his new place of posting at Port Blair and the CIST Unit at Port Blair has the necessary accommodation for the family members of the armed force personnel, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by allowing the petitioner to retain the present accommodation at CISF Unit OPS Noonmati till such family accommodation is provided to the petitioner at his new place of posting at Port Blair. 12. As the implication of this order is that the respondents would allow the petitioner to remain in the present residential accommodation till such accommodation is provided to him at his new place of posting, we are of the view that the penalty imposed on the petitioner would also be untenable under the law, but on the other hand, if in lieu thereof double HRA had already been paid to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to refund the double HRA and the necessary calculations be made by the authorities accordingly. 13. Writ petition, accordingly, stands allowed.