(D L 4/? l wig IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CG WRIT PETITION (é; N0. 3 i i (a /2009 PETITIONER <‘Satyendra Vir Pathak, aged about 64 years, son of Late Shri Dhanwant Singh Pathak, Retired Sub Engineer, P.W.D., Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh (CG) R/o. Near Diet Patrapara, Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh, thru — Secretary 1. Department of Public Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C’G.) 2. Chief Engineer (Mukhya Abhiyanta), Public Works Department, Raipur (CG) 3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Raigarh Distt. Raigarh (CG) 4. Joint Director (Treasury, Pension & Accounts), Bilaspur (CG) District Treasury Officer, Raigarh (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, é EW 7 ‘ 4 %\\6\9% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3116 of2009 PETITIONER Satvendra Vir Pathak. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Fresent: Shri ANBhakta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shn' NNaha Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL é: (Passed on 27 day ofOctober, 2009) The petitioner, by this petition, challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 6m March, 2009 P/l) and the order dated 15m (Annexure P/l) October, 2007 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner was directed to pay the rent of the house No. R-22, (H—Type), for retaining the same alter his retirement from service. Indisputably, the petitioner while working as Sub Engineer in Public Works Department, was allotted government quarter No. R—22, at Civil Lines, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 315‘ August, 2005. The petitioner continued in occupation of the said quarter till 2nd of November, 2007 for about 2 years and 2 months, after his retirement. The State order dated 6m March, 2009, determined the Government, by market .rate of,1’he government quarter which was in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner could not have retained the allotted quarter for more than one or two months after retirement, and that too, without permission ofthe competent authority. 3. Shri Bhakta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision to impose market rate on occupation of the Ix government quarter as the pensionary dues of the petitioner was not settled. It is further contended that'as the order dated 19m March, per 2001 (Annexure Pl'Z), the respondents cannot realise rent of the government accommodation more than Rs. 75i— per month. Be that as it may: the petitioner, atter retirement cannot continue in the government accommodation for more than one or two months, and that too, without permission ofthe competent authority. After retirement, the government accommodation has to be vacated for making it available for other incumbents. No provision of iaw has been placed by the petitioner stating that an employee is entitled to continuation in the official accommodation after his retirement, if his retiral dues has not been settled. Once the petitioner’s service has come to an end on attaining the age .of superannuation, the master and servant relation ceases. The employee becomes ex-employee as the retirement comes into force with imrhediate effect. Thereaiter, occupation ofthe petitioner in the government quarter without permission of the competent authority may be treated as unauthorized and illegal. Reliance of the petitioner on the order dated 19th March, 2001 (Annexure P/3) is of no relevance as the same is for imposition of rent for those employees who are in service and not for those, who have already retired. The order dated 4th February, 2001 (Annexure R/1)r relied by learned counsel for the respondents clearly indicates that the market rate of rent for H-Type of quarter would be Rs. 1500/— per month. Accordingly, the market rate has been imposed on the petitioner. Contention of Shri Bhakta that the circular dated 4m February, 2001 indicates that it is applicable for Raipur Division only, the same is rejected as the fact remains that the petitioner was in unauthorized illegal occupation of the quarter allotted to him. Thus, no relief can be gamed to the pefitioner’.‘ There is no infirmity or illegality warranting interference with the impugned orders dated 6m March, 2009 (Annexure P/l) and 15m October, 2007 (Annexure P/2). For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. i . . 5d]- . Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge