IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8063 of 2007 BIJOY KUMAR CHAUDHARY, s/o Late Bindeshwari Chaudhary, Permanent Resident of village- Mehan, P.O Dandari, P S. Balia, District- Begusarai. .. Petitioner. . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Technology Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Director, Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of Bihar, Technology Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Principal, Bhagalpur Engineering College, Bhagalpur. 4. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Bailey Raod, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 6. The Accountant General, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 2. 26.08.2010 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate No. 8 for the State as also Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Accountant General. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows;- “(i) To quash the order contained in letter no. 296 dt. 21.2.2007 of respondent no. 5 by which the petitioner has been asked to pay dues towards rent of Govt. Quarter, along with penal interest of Rs.24,497/- allegedly being occupied by him beyond the period prescribed. (ii) To quash the follow up order contained in letter No. 276 dt. 10.3.2007 of respondent no. 3 by which petitioner has been communicated with the decision of respondent no. 5 and has been asked to pay 2 the amount of Rs.24,497/- towards rent of Govt. quarter including penal interest allegedly being occupied by the petitioner. (iii) To command the respondents & restrain them from realising the alleged penal rent of rs.24,497/- from the petitioner towards the occupation of Govt. Quarter. (iV) To hold and declare that the petitioner was not at all at fault for allegedly occupying the Govt. Quarter beyond prescribed period, as being suggested by the respondents, and further fix the responsibility to the respondents for not allowing the petitioner to get his admitted dues for separate accommodation and also for treatment of his ailment of Cancer and further respondents be restrained from discriminating petitioner as many persons who were/are in much better position, have been in possession of such Govt. Quarters without any valid excuse.” Though initially on Yesterday, learned counsel for the petitioner was quite emphatic that the petitioner had justifiably retained the government quarter after his retirement and for such retention he would not be liable to pay penal rent, today he would fairly submit that at least there was no judgment of the Apex Court or this Court to support his contention. He would, therefore, now confine his grievance to adjustment of Rs.5000/- as against the amount of penal rent of Rs.24,497/- and for this purpose he would refer to his pleading in paragraph 23 of the writ 3 petition which reads as follows:- “23. That A.G. Bihar, Patna cleared the gratuity amount of the petitioner after deducting interest dues on car advances & also deducted Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) for want of No Dues Certificate for Govt. quarters. However, petitioner was not paid his commuted pension amount till the disposal of his case dated 10.4.04.” Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that even if the petitioner is liable to pay penal rent as fixed in the impugned order to the tune of Rs.24,497/-, the adjustment of Rs.5000/- already recovered from the retirement benefit of the petitioner should be allowed. As usual there is no counter affidavit on behalf of the State despite the fact this writ application was filed some more three years earlier. Thus, there is no denial to the specific averment made by petitioner in paragraph 23 that a sum of Rs.5000/- was recovered by the Accountant General on account of absence of no dues certificate of government quarter. If this amount of Rs.5000/- is referable to the house rent payable by the petitioner and was kept on account by the Accountant General for the purpose of giving payment of amount of gratuity, the Accountant General is bound to adjust the same in the 4 total demand of Rs.24,497/-. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondent including Accountant General to ensure that the petitioner’s deduction on the head of house rent (penal rent) in no event would exceed Rs.24,497/- and therefore if the petitioner would deposit Rs.19,497/-, the Accountant General, after making verification of a sum of Rs.5000/- already deducted from the amount of gratuity or any other retirement benefit payable to the petitioner, would accept the payment of Rs.19,497/- as full and final payment towards penal rent of Rs.24,497/-. However, if the Accountant General would find that Rs.5000/- was not deducted towards the house rent and the petitioner still would be liable to pay the balance of Rs.5000/- communication to this effect through a reasoned order would be made to the petitioner and in that case the petitioner would also deposit remaining Rs.5000/-. Such exercise must be completed by the petitioner and respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if any amount payable to the 5 petitioner has been kept pending and has not been paid to the petitioner only on account of non-payment of the penal rent by the petitioner, the respondents must make its payment as soon as the petitioner would produce no dues clearance certificate on the head of house rent/penal rent. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)