Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14691 of 2019 Petitioner :- Saddik Mohammed Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raja Singh,Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner is a Constable in CISF, who has been transferred from Auraiya to Deoli in Rajasthan. While posted at Auraiya, the petitioner was allotted an official accommodation. In view of his transfer, petitioner has been asked to vacate the official premises. Petitioner had made a request for being allowed to continue in the official accommodation for some more time, in view of the fact that his children are studying. The authorities, consequently, have permitted the petitioner to continue uptill 31st August, 2019. Aggrieved by such decision, petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would not be able to get an accommodation at the transferred place and in view of the fact that his wards are studying at Auraiya, he be allowed to continue for this academic session.
Sri Rajesh Tripathi, appearing for the respondents has placed a circular of the department dated 13th September, 2016 in order to submit that maximum extension, in such circumstances, can be granted is for three months. Petitioner's daughter is doing her graduation, but in view of the policy it is not possible to allow the petitioner to continue any further.
Admittedly petitioner has been transferred and in terms of the policy, he has already been allowed three month's time to vacate the premises. In place of the petitioner somebody else may have been transferred. In case petitioner does not vacate the premises, the transferred person would be without an official accommodation. Petitioner would otherwise be entitled to House Rent Allowances, in case the petitioner is not allotted accommodation at the transferred place. Though petitioner's difficulty appears to be reasonable but over all affairs of administration for the police force would have to be kept in mind while considering individual difficulty of the petitioner. In terms of the policy petitioner otherwise would not be able to retain the premises for more than three months. In such view of the matter, no interference in the writ petition is called for.
Liberty, however, stands reserved to the petitioner to represent in the matter and if it is found that accommodation in excess of requirement is available, the authority concerned shall be at liberty to consider the petitioner's request for continuance in the premises beyond consideration of three months.
Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019 Anil