IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3537 of 2004 SAKAL DEO SINGH RETIRED ASSISTANT CIVIL DEFENCE DEPARTMENT SON OF LATE DAROGA SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PHATEPUR, P.S. RAGHOPUR DISTRICT VAISHALI AT PRESENT C/O KRISHNA PRASAD RESIDENT OF KAUA MASKO, CHOWK THANA PATNA CITY, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,GOVT. OF BIHAR 3. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL DEFENCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. HOME SECRETARY (HOME SPECIAL), BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 6. COLLECTOR CUM CONTROLLER OF CIVIL DEFENCE, PATNA. 7. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PATNA. 8. CIVIL DEFENCE OFFICER, PATNA. ----------- 3 16/07/2010 The District Magistrate-cum-Controller, Civil Defence, Patna ordered recovery of the amounts mentioned in the impugned order contained in annexure-1 in 20 equal monthly instalments from the salary of the petitioner on the ground that despite petitioner having official accommodation was also drawing house rent allowance. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned the amount worked out is stated to be Rs.21,780/-. Petitioner decided to challenge that - 2 - order in the given set of facts that the petitioner was initially appointed as night guard in the Civil Defence Department. Later on he earned promotion to the post of Assistant. While the petitioner was working as night guard, the so called control room of the Civil Defence was shifted from Golghar to a half constructed building known as Indira Gandhi Ekta Bhawan. Control room was working in two semi finished rooms of which the petitioner was required to guard and protect. It is his case that those two rooms were not official accommodation but were office premises and by virtue of nature of responsibility thrust upon the petitioner, he does not deny that he even used to live there as a night watch man. When he got promotion to the post of Assistant, he moved to some accommodation in Patna City. Since he did not have any official quarter allotted to him, he drew house rent allowance from the respondents. On a mistaken information or complaint the respondent authorities issued the order contained in annexure-1 seeking deduction or refund of the house rent allowance from 2.11.1994 till March, 2000. Stand of the respondents is that there is indication that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises and - 3 - when he was living in a government accommodation, there was no occasion for him to draw house rent allowance. What is the basis for taking such a stand in the counter affidavit is not indicated because it is not even their case that the room in which the petitioner was living was declared to be a residential accommodation allotted to the petitioner for his use as government servant. Every occupation of official premises by a government servant does not amount to occupation of residence or accommodation duly allotted to him. The admitted position is that the so called two rooms of which atleast the petitioner was one of the so called occupant was the control room of the Civil Defence office. Obviously, the respondents do not understand the difference between official allotment of residence or may be illegal occupation of a government premises which is not residential in kind. In view of the above, decision to deduct a sum of Rs.21,780/- as the house rent allowance paid to he petitioner seems to be misplaced. The impugned order is quashed. Writ application is allowed. If any deduction has been made, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within three months - 4 - from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)