WP(C) 1073/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The order on behalf of the respondent Corporation contained in t he letter dated 7.3.2009 of its Manager (P & A) requiring the petitioner to vaca te the quarter in his occupation following his transfer to the Tandur Cement Fac tory is the subject matter of challenge in the instant proceeding. This Court wh ile issuing notice of motion on 16.3.2009, restrained the respondents from effec ting eviction of the petitioner from the said quarter. 2. I have heard Mr P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner an d Mr J Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Cement Corporation of India (referred to a s ’the Corporation’ as well). 3. The petitioner had joined the Corporation as an Electrician-cum- Wireman and, according to him, rose in the ranks thereof by promotion to Grade V I in its service. Though he represented for further promotion, the same remained unheeded. As the matter rested at that, by an order dated 28.8.2008 he was tran sferred to Tandur Unit (Andhra Pradesh) of the Corporation. The release order d ated 30.8.2008 followed. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court in WP(C) No. 3900/2008 for redress. This Court, however, by order dated 12.9.2008 negated the challenge. The endeavour to have the determination reviewed by the petitioner a lso failed. It was at that point of time that by the decision impugned herein he has been asked to vacate his quarter in his occupation. 4. The petitioner contended in substance that the direction of the Corporation to vacate his quarter without arranging for an alternative accommoda tion for him is illegal and arbitrary. He also cited dislocation of his children ’s studies as a ground in assailment of the said decision. According to him, his daughter who, at the relevant point of time was a student of Class XI, was to a ppear in the final examination to commence from 17.3.2009 to be followed by the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council Examination in the year 2010. He also m entioned about his son who then was a student of Class-X and was due to appear i n the ensuing High School Leaving Certificate Examination to commence in the fir st part of the year 2010. Dislocation of the studies of his youngest son, then a student of Class- IV was also referred to. 5. The respondent Corporation in its affidavit while endorsing the validity of the order of transfer has asserted that in terms of the prevailing n orms an incumbent under order of transfer is required to vacate his quarter with in six days therefrom. It has been stated that neither the petitioner has since then joined his new place of posting nor has submitted any representation expres sing any of his difficulties and/or inconveniences mentioned in the writ petitio n. That with the efflux of time the family problems cited by him have also subsi ded has been averred as well. 6. Whereas Mr Mahanta has persuasively urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case insistence on the part of the respondent Corporation t o get the quarter vacated is per se illegal and arbitrary, Mr Roy has contended that in terms of the norms in force to which the petitioner is subject to, he ha s no right in law to hold on to the quarter. Moreover, as the grounds bearing on his family problems have been rendered non-est with the passage of time, the ch allenge ought to be negated by this Court. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of their pleadings, this Court is constrained to sustain the pleas raise d on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner’s challeng e to the order of his transfer to the Tandur Unit of the Corporation has been re jected by this Court. Apparently as well, the ground of dislocation of the acade mic pursuit of his children as on date has no substance. The affidavit of the re spondent Corporation reveals that the petitioner has not yet joined the new plac e of posting where his service is required. The petitioner has not been able to produce any material requiring arrangement of an alternative accommodation of an employee on transfer to be a condition precedent for the vacation of a quarter at a particular station. The materials on record, therefore, do not warrant a co nclusion that the respondent Corporation is obliged in law or in terms of the no rms governing the service conditions of its employees to provide an alternative accommodation as an indispensable pre-requisite to insist on the vacation of the quarter on his/her transfer from a particular station. 8. In the above view of the matter, the challenge to the impugned o rder cannot be sustained. This notwithstanding, it would be open for the petitio ner to submit an appropriate representation before the concerned authority of th e respondent Corporation ventilating his subsisting grievances vis-a-vis his acc ommodation at Bokajan as well as the penalty towards house rent and electricity charges demanded of him by the communication dated 7.3.2009 as above. If such a representation is submitted, needless to say the respondent Corporation would co nsider the same on merits and take a decision thereon in accordance with the rel evant norms and administrative guidelines. 9. The petition, therefore, is dismissed with the above observation . No costs.