1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY WA(MD)Nos.348 and 349 of 2011 and MPNos.2 and 2 of 2011 P.Thangaraj :Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.348 of 2011 M.Mayan :Appellant in W.A.(MD).No.349 of 2011 -Vs- 1.The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Madurai Region, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries), Fisheries Department, Vaigai Dam, Theni District. :Respondents in Both Writ Appeals PRAYER:Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.8240 and 8242 of 2010 on the file of this Court. For Appellants : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For Respondents: Mr.K.Mahendran,Special Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT [Common Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.SUGUNA, J] These Writ Appeals are filed as against a Common Order dated 30.11.2010 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.8240 and 8242 of 2010. 2.The facts leading to this case are as follows:- The appellants herein were appointed as Fishermen and posted at Vaigam Dam to serve under the second respondent. The appellants were allotted with Plot Nos.5 and 14 in the fisheries quarters at Vaigai Dam, and thereafter, they were transferred to Dindigul Region. However, the appellants had not vacated the quarters allotted to them. Therefore, the second respondent, by orders dated 24.05.2010 and 27.01.2010, had directed them to pay penal rent of Rs.83,987/- and Rs.61,006/- for occupation of quarters in question, since after their transfer to some other place, they have not vacated the quarters. Challenging the same, the appellants had filed W.P.(MD).Nos.8240 and 8242 of 2010. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 30.11.2010, had dismissed the said Writ Petitions. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeals have been filed. 3.The stand of the learned counsel for the appellants is that by the orders, under challenge in the Writ Petitions, the appellants were directed to pay penal rent at three times of the normal rent, which is extra- ordinary. Apart from this, if they were intimated much earlier with regard to the payment of rent, they would have vacated the quarters in question and no calculation memo has been given with regard to the quantum of amount to be paid by the appellants. Based on the above, the learned counsel for the appellants seeks for allowing of the Writ Appeals. 4.The second respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit. As per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, the appellants were transferred to Dindigul in the year 1992 and 2000 respectively, and therefore, by orders dated 14.07.1998 and 15.07.2005, they were directed to vacate the quarters But, the appellants had vacated the quarters and handed over the same only on 31.08.2009 and 30.06.2009. Based on the above, the learned Special Government Pleader has submitted that the appellants are not entitled for the relief sought for. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.We have considered the above submissions made by the respective learned counsel. 6.The learned counsel for the appellants has produced synopsis. As per the synopsis, the rent fixed and deducted from the salary of the appellants from May 1997 to September 2009 is as follows:- May 1997 to March 1998 Rs.100/- April 1998 to June 2001 Rs.150/- July 2001 to February 2002 Rs.180/- March 2002 to December 2005 Rs.180/- January 2006 to June 2009 Rs.320/- July 2009 to September 2009 Rs.640/- 7.It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that after their transfer, the appellants were in occupation of the quarters. As far as these quarters are concerned, they are post- attached quarters, that is to say, to enable a person, who has been transferred to some other place, to have an accommodation, these quarters have been allotted. But, in the event of continuous occupation of the said quarters by those who have been transferred to some other place, the individual, who is eligible for allotment of quarters, will be deprived of his chances of getting quarters As per the synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, on 07.01.2000, the transfer orders were issued to the appellants. However, the appellants had vacated the quarters and handed over the same only on 31.08.2009 and 30.06.2009. As per the Government Letter No.1568, dated 09.11.1993, penal rent has to be paid at three times of the normal rent and basing on this,the orders under challenge in the Writ Petitions were passed. 8.In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and the appellants are bound to pay penal rent. But, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, as far as the appellants are concerned, they are the Last Grade Servants. Taking note of this, the respondents are directed to recover the said amount in easy installments. As far as the appellant in W.A.(MD).No.348 of 2011 is concerned, since he is having three years of service, a sum of Rs.700/- per month shall be deducted from his salary and since the appellant in W.A.(MD) No.349 of 2011 is having five years of service, a sum of Rs.600/- shall be deducted from his salary. These Writ Appeals are dismissed with the above direction. No costs Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (LA) / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Madurai Region, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director of Fisheries, (Inland Fisheries), Fisheries Department, Vaigai Dam, Theni District. +2CC to Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan, Advocate. SR.Nos.18231 & 18230. NB JUDGMENT MADE IN WA(MD)Nos.348 and 349 of 2011 RP/06.07.2011/2P/5C. 13.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/