Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Sita Sharma, wife of Late Arun Kumar Suman – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2722 of 2011
Decided On : 10-01-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate, Ms. Smriti Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Suman Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A.2
Headnote:
Rent/Penal Rent - Government Quarter Occupation - 2002 (4) PLJR (SC) 12, 2009 (1) PLJR 543 - The court discussed the imposition of penal rent for unauthorized occupation of a government quarter after retirement, citing legal provisions and interpretations from previous judgments. The court upheld the imposition of rent/penal rent as per existing guidelines, rejecting the petitioner's contention of violation of principles of natural justice. However, the court set aside the direction to recover penal rent for the period when the petitioner was in service, citing violation of principles of natural justice and lack of legal sanction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's husband, a retired government employee, was directed to pay a balance amount for unauthorized occupation of a government quarter after retirement. The petitioner sought to quash the orders, claiming illegality and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the imposition of rent/penal rent for unauthorized occupation after retirement, citing existing guidelines and rejecting the petitioner's claims of illegality and violation of principles of natural justice. However, the court set aside the direction to recover penal rent for the period when the petitioner was in service, citing violation of principles of natural justice and lack of legal sanction.
Issues: Imposition of rent/penal rent for unauthorized occupation after retirement, and the direction to recover penal rent for the period when the petitioner was in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that continued occupation of a government quarter by a retired employee would be illegal and upheld the imposition of rent/penal rent as per existing guidelines. However, the court set aside the direction to recover penal rent for the period when the petitioner was in service, citing violation of principles of natural justice and lack of legal sanction.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ application, setting aside the direction to recover penal rent for the period when the petitioner was in service and directing the refund of any amount recovered from the pensionary benefits. The petitioner was held liable to deposit the imposed rent/penal rent for unauthorized occupation after retirement.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf the State.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by letter No. 369 Katihar dated 11.03.2010 issued under the signature of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Katihar addressed to Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara, by which he has requested him to recover a sum of Rs. 6440/- as balance amount due against the husband of the petitioner who had retired from service on 31.12.2008, but had unauthorizedly and illegally occupied the government quarter with effect from 01.01.2009 for a period of 15 months. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara was directed to mention the amount of Rs. 6440/- in the no objection certificate to be issued to the Treasury Officer and the Accountant General, Bihar, Patna for the purpose of such recovery, so that the pension of the husband of the petitioner may be released.
3. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the letter no. 530 dated 27.04.2010 issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Katihar addressed to the Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara by which an additional amount as penal rent for the period from January 2005 to December 2008 has been directed to be recovered from the pension of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 448/- per month.
4. During pendency of the writ application, the original petitioner died and his wife has been substituted as petitioner in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are wholly illegally, arbitrary and bad in law as also suffer from violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, are liable to be quashed.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that while serving in the Irrigation Division at Katihar as a Correspondence Clerk he was allotted the government quarter in question at the approved government rate @ Rs. 28/-. He was later transferred to Dehri-On-Sone in the office of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department and from there he was transferred to the office of Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara vide letter No. 3885 dated 10.07.2003. The petitioner was thereafter not allotted any quarter at his transferred place at Ara nor was given any housing allowance for that period. The petitioner claimed that he could not vacate the quarter at Katihar and the house rent of the period from January 2000 to 31.12.2008 were deducted from the salary of the petitioner at Ara on the basis of last pay certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Katihar. He retired from service on 31.12.2008. No dues certificate was also issued through letter no. 221 dated 06.03.2009 by Annexure-1 to the writ application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he deposited the rent of Rs. 28/- per month for the period from January 2009 to October 2009 and a copy of the Treasury Challan showing such payment was submitted by him along with his application before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Katihar with a request to take appropriate steps for the payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner and to send ‘No Dues” certificate to the concerned Treasury Officer.
8. It is only thereafter the impugned orders came to be issued. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri Vindhyachal Singh, learned Advocate assisted by Ms. Smriti Singh, learned Advocate submits that the imposition of penal rent for the period January 2005 to December 2008 from the pension of the petitioner @ Rs. 448/- per month would be illegal. He submits that any deduction from the pensionary benefits which are n the nature of the statutory benefit and have been interpreted as a property ‘under Article 31-A(1) of the Constitution of India’ would be illegal particularly when there is no law permitting such deductions. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad reported in 2002 (4) PLJR (SC) 12 and on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in
