IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.397 of 2005 SHANKAR DAYAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha III For the State of Bihar : Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, G.A. VI For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Dhrub Mukherjee 4 12.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar and for the State of Jharkhand and learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in the services of the State of Bihar. He was allotted a Government quarter no. 16/A, Road No. 9, situated at Gardanibagh in the town of Patna on 1.10.1983. In course of his services he was transferred out of Patna, inter alia, to Bhagalpur and Ranchi, when ultimately by the reorganization of the State of Bihar, his services were finally allotted to the State of Jharkhand from where he superannuated. Notwithstanding his transfer from Patna, on basis of the initial allotment the petitioner continued to retain the government quarter till his superannuation from the State of Jharkhand. In Controversy is his liability to pay rent. Rent for the period after his transfer from Patna till the date of superannuation is stated to have already been deducted from his pensionary benefits. To that extent learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he has no case under the rules. The grievance now however, is that notwithstanding the fact that the respondents State of Bihar continued to accept rent from the - 2 - petitioner after his transfer from Patna till the date of his retirement (the period of occupation after termination being excluded from consideration for the present) the authorities of the State of Bihar have not adjusted the government rent paid by the petitioner while recovering penal rent for the same period. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar, purporting to place on records certain calculation, this Court is unable to arrive at a positive finding that due adjustment by the State of Bihar has been made while determining the penal rent of the government rent claimed to have been paid by the petitioner. Quite obviously, this shall not cover the period of occupation after his superannuation and with regard to which the Court makes no observations. The only appropriate order to be passed is to direct the Secretary Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna after giving opportunity to the petitioner, to determine if the government rent paid by the petitioner for the period of occupation while he was in government service has been adjusted giving him due credit while fixing liability for penal rent. Let the same be done within maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and production. In the event the Secretary concerned arrives at the conclusion that due credit has been given he shall only be required to pass an order to that effect. If however, he arrives at the conclusion that due credit for the government rent paid has not been given while - 3 - determining penal rent, he shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in respect thereof when this Court directs that the respondents State of Jharkhand shall proceed to issue appropriate orders for refund, if any, to the petitioner in light thereof. This writ application is disposed off. Kundan (Navin Sinha, J.)