Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police, is seeking quashing of the order dated 06.03.2019 whereby a recovery of Rs.5,00,805/- has been ordered against him on the ground that he is in unauthorised occupation of the official government quarter at Sitapur. The impugned order discloses that the petitioner was relieved from Sitapur PAC to Civil Police (U.P.P.) District Sitapur on 02.11.2013 but he has not vacated the official government quarter No.174, Type-I.
Assailing the order dated 06.03.2019, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugner order is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment passed in Special Appeal No. 509 of 2013 (Udit Narayan v. State of U.P.) dated 11.04.2013. In the similar controversy, this Court quashed the order of recovery of penal rent.
Further submitted that this Court vide judgment dated 05.04.2016, passed in Writ-A No. 38886 of 2015, relying upon the judgment dated 11.04.2013, interfered in the order of recovery of penal rent and remanded the matter to the authority to re-visit the order. Thus, the order dated 06.03.2019 is liable to be interfered.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel sought to justify the recovery by saying that recovery is permissible in view of the Government Orders on the issue. He could not dispute the settled legal preposition on the issue. However, he again submitted that the recovery of penal rent for unauthorized occupation of Government accommodation is permissible and there are Government Orders on the issue and sought time to bring the same on record.
Considered the pleadings on record and submission made by the counsels of the parties, as also taken note of the judgment dated 11.04.2013 and 05.04.2016.
Prima facie, it appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.04.2013 and 05.04.2016.
In view of the above, this Court feels that the issue of recovery of penal rent from the petitioner requires re-consideration by the opposite party No. 4.
Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 4 to re-consider/re-visit the order dated 06.03.2019 in the light of the judgment dated 11.04.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 509 of 2013 (Udit Narayan Dwivedi v. State of U.P.) and judgment dated 05.04.2016 passed in Writ-A No. 38886 of 2015 (Karmveer Singh v. State of U.P.) and the Government Orders on the issue and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, under intimation to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observations/directions the writ petition stands disposed of.
Till the decision is taken by the respondent no. 4, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today, in respect of recovery in pursuance of the impugned order.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]