IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17833 OF 2011 BETWEEN: C. Jaya Ramaiah S/o. Adiseshaiah …. Petitioner AND Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17833 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Office Memorandum No.PR-11024/CISF/RGIA/FA/QM/2011/2286, dated 12-04-2011, and proceedings No.PR-11024/CISF/RGIA/FA/QM /PR(CJ)/2011-3198, dated 14-05-2011, passed by the 3rd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to deduct the penal rent from the petitioner’s salary and refund the amount which was deducted from the petitioner’s salary. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1986 and got promotion as Head Constable in the year 2008. Thereafter, he was posted at 3rd Reserve Battalion at Bilai, Assam and Hyderabad on temporary basis. At the time of posting at Bilai, his children were pursuing their studies at Visakhapatnam in Telugu Medium. Therefore, he made a representation to the respondents for extension of time for family accommodation at Visakhapatnam. Thereafter also, he made representations regularly to the respondents requesting them to retain his family in the family accommodation at Visakhapatnam, but the respondents did not give any reply either refusing or considering his case. While so, during the month of January 2010, the petitioner was posted temporarily at Hyderabad Airport and was posted to the same place in the month of April 2010. After his posting at Hyderabad, the petitioner vacated the family accommodation at Visakhapatnam in the month of February 2011 and obtained clearance certificate from the 4th respondent office. While vacating the quarter, he paid the entire charges towards electricity and water. On 12-04-2011, the 3rd respondent issued the impugned memo to the petitioner stating that his application for extension of time for family accommodation was forwarded to the CISF Headquarters at Chennai and the same was returned to the CISF Unit VSP, Visakhapatnam with a direction to dispose of the same at the Unit level and the Commandant & CASO, CISF ASG RGIA Hyderabad, rejected the application by directing the petitioner to pay the penal rent of Rs.43,341/- for the period from 01-04-2009 to 10-02-2011. The petitioner was not allotted any other quarter from 31-05-2008 and that he was not paid any HRA. The other persons who were posted at North Easter Sector were given double HRA but he was not given that benefit. After receiving the order, dated 12-04-2011, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 18-04-2011 with a request to drop the recovery of penal rent, but the 2nd respondent did not pass any orders. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation on 05-05-2011 with a request to stay recovery of the penal rent. The 3rd respondent rejected the same stating that his application dated 18-04-2011 has been forwarded to the Headquarters, hence, till the disposal of the same, recovery of rent cannot be stopped. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have issued the impugned proceedings without considering the requests made by the petitioner, that the petitioner was not paid the HRA at the present station, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that when the petitioner submitted a representation, he was given permission to retain in the family accommodation till the completion of the academic year, with an observation that no further extension to retain in the family accommodation is allowed and inspite of the said order, he was continued till 11-02-2011 and therefore, he is liable to pay the penal rent as ordered in the impugned proceedings. 5. The petitioner is not seriously challenging the impugned proceedings, but his only grievance is that HRA is not being paid. In view of the fact that in spite of giving suitable directions to vacate the premises, the petitioner has not done so, therefore, the respondents are entitled to recover the penal rent. Hence, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from making a representation to the concerned authorities for the purpose of HRA, which was not paid to him. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 11, 2011. KTL