Point of Law: The penalty imposed on petitioner would also be untenable under law, but on other hand, if in lieu thereof double HRA had already been paid to petitioner, it is for petitioner to refund double HRA and necessary calculations be made by authorities accordingly.

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. 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/request