IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
T. NANDA KUMAR SINGH & S.R.SEN, JJ.
Union of India & ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
Lekh Bahadur Thapa, Blacksmith & ors. - Respondent
WP(C)No.27/2015
Decided On : 07.04.2015
Transfer - Government Quarter - Retention of Quarter at Last Place of Posting
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a government employee, was transferred from Umroi Military Station to the office of the Garrison Engineer, Shillong. He was asked to vacate the government quarter at Umroi Military Station. The respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking to retain the quarter at his last place of posting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was entitled to retain the quarter at his last place of posting, as per the policy decision of the Central Government followed by the petitioners. The court directed that the respondent should not be vacated from the quarter at Umroi Military Station until a new quarter at Shillong was allotted to him.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was entitled to retain the government quarter at his last place of posting despite being transferred to a new location.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the policy decision of the Central Government, which allowed government employees in certain regions to retain entitled accommodation at their last place of posting on payment of flat rate/normal license fee. The court interpreted this policy to be applicable to the respondent and influenced its decision to allow him to retain the quarter at Umroi Military Station.
Final Decision: The court modified the impugned order and directed that the respondent should not be vacated from the quarter at Umroi Military Station until a new quarter at Shillong was allotted to him.
(Justice T. Nandakumar Singh)
Heard Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Dev, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R Gurung, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.03.2014 allowing the Original Application No.040-000090 of 2014 filed by the respondent by granting the limited relief to the extent that “the respondent authority not to vacate the applicant (present respondent) from the quarter in view of the transfer from Umroi to Shillong”.
3. The fact sufficient for deciding, the matter in issue, in the present writ petition is noted. The respondent was appointed as Blacksmith in the office of the Assistant Garrison Engineer (I), Umroi Military Station on 17.05.1983 and eventually, he was promoted to the post of SH (I). Admittedly, the respondent was allotted the quarter (quarter-in-question) while he was working in the post of SH (I) at Umroi Military Station. It is stated that due to exigency, the respondent was transferred vide order dated 01.02.2014 from Umroi Military Station to the office of the Garrison Engineer, Shillong. Pursuant to the transfer order dated 01.02.2014 vide impugned letter dated 17.02.2014, the respondent had been asked to vacate the Govt. quarter at Umroi Military Station. Being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 01.04.2014 and the impugned letter dated 17.02.2014 asking the respondent to vacate the quarter occupied by him, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwhati Bench by filing Original Application No.040- 000090 of 2014. The said Original Application No.040-000090 of 2014 was disposed of by the tribunal by passing the impugned order dated 06.03.2014. At the time of motion hearing of the said Original Application No.040-000090 of 2014, learned counsel for the respondent clearly stated that as the multiple prayers are not permissible under Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the respondent restricted the prayer in the Original Application No.040- 000090 of 2014 only to the impugned letter dated 17.02.2014 directing the respondent/applicant to vacate the quarter occupied by him at Umroi Military Station. Therefore, it is clear that the present respondent is not questioning or assailing the transfer order dated 01.02.2014 for transferring him from Umroi Military Station to the office of Garrison Engineer, Shillong.
4. The further case of the respondent is that under the policy decision of the Central Govt., which is followed by the petitioners that the Central Govt. employees serving in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Sikkim and Union Territories of Andaman & Nicobar, who desire to keep their families at the last place of their posting will be eligible to retain entitled type of accommodation on payment of flat rate/normal licence fee. The respondent desires to retain the quarter allotted to him at his last place of posting and it is also the further case of the respondent that the said concession would also be admissible to the Govt. servant transferred from one State to another in the North East Region. The learned tribunal passed the impugned judgment and order dated 06.03.2014 that the respondent under the said policy decision of the Central Govt., which is followed by the respondents/petitioners, is entitled to retain the quarter-in-question allotted to him in his last place of posting. Mr. R Gurung, learned counsel for the respondent submits at the Bar that after the respondent had been transferred from Umroi Military Station to the office of Garrison Engineer, Shillong, no quarter is allotted to the respondent at Shillong. Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits at the Bar that until and unless instruction is received, he cannot answer the question as to whether the respondent is allotted new quarter at Shillong after the transfer ord
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.