•^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR Coram:" Hon'ble Shri Dhlrendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ Appellant Petitjoner Respondents Writ Appea! No.355/2009 Satyendra Vir Pathak, aged about 63 years, son of Late Shri Dhanwant Singh Pathak, Retired Sub Engineer, P.W.D. Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh (CG) R/o Near Diet Patrapara, Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Secretary, Department of Public Works, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Raigarh Distt. Raigarh rco) 3. The Joint Director (Treasury, Account & Pension), Bilaspur, Distt. Biiaspur (CG) 4. The Djstrict Treasury Officer, Distt. Raigarh (CG) 5. The Chief Engineer (Mukhya Abhyanta), PubicWorks Deptt. Raipur (CG) Appeal under Sectlon 2 of tlie Chhattisaarh Hiah Court jADDeal to Divlsjon Bench) Act, 2006 Present: Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel for the appellant. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. Oral.Q.rder (Passed on 2"° of December, 2009) Per Dhirendra iVlishra, J:- This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27th October, 2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.3116/2009, whereby the appellant's petitlon for quashing of the orders dated 06.03.2009 and 15.10.2007 imposing penal rent for occupying government accommodation even after retirement, has been dismissed. (2) Learned counset for the appeltant submits that the penal rent has been imposed upon the appellant on the basis of circuiar dated 04.02.2000 (Annexure A-3), which was issued by the Chief Engineer (East) Public Works Department, Raipur. The said circular was not applicable in the case of the appellant as the same was with respect to the jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer, Pubiic Works Department, Raipur. He further submits that the retriai dues of the appeliant were not paid and therefore, he was forced to occupy the said accommodation, as he had no other aiternate accommodation. (3) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. The arguments advanced by iearned counsel for the appeilant have already been considered by learned single Judge and we are in agreement with the view taken by iearned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appeiiant. Priya (4) There is no substance in the appeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissec Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge