HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1934 of 2003 (S/S) Janardan Prasad Gairola …. Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others … Respondents Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 4th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Restoration Application No. 786 of 2009 Delay Condonation Application No. 8995 of 2009 The applicant/petitioner has moved restoration application along with delay condonation application. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanied with the delay condonation application appear to be bona fide. Delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanied with the restoration application appear to be just and proper. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 12.2.2007 passed by this Court is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P. No. 1934 of 2003 (S/S) Heard Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 2 The petitioner was a Forester in the Provincial Forest Services. In the year 1985, the petitioner was transferred from Purola range to Rawain range in Uttarkashi. However, the petitioner did not vacate his official residence at Purola for which repeated reminders were sent to him. It is an admitted case, therefore, that since 1985 the petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of government accommodation. Consequently the petitioner was asked to pay an amount to the authorities which is three times the normal rent of premises, which is as the prevailing orders. When the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises and to deposit the enhanced rent amount, the petitioner, instead filed a Civil Suit no. 16 of 1997 in district Uttarkashi and obtained a stay order against the orders of eviction. This suit was ultimately dismissed and an appeal being Appeal no. 21 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner against the said order, which was also ultimately dismissed. However, while the appeal of the petitioner was pending, it is alleged in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court praying that the recovery against the petitioner may not be initiated and the respondents be directed to grant pension to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service in the year 2000 and it is now alleged by the petitioner that neither the gratuity of the petitioner has been released in his favour nor the pension has been given to the petitioner since his retirement although it is settled position of law that neither pension nor gratuity is a bounty but a right of a government servant. But this case has peculiar facts, much of the hardship of the petitioner is due to his own actions, as he remained in unauthorised occupation of official residence for more than 20 years and as according to the petitioner himself this accommodation was only vacated by him in the year 2006. On the other hand, since the matter relates to 3 pension and gratuity of the petitioner, it is necessary in the interest of justice that the same may be disposed of now. According to the petitioner, the notice of recovery against the petitioner (which is annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition) is for Rs. 1,11, 130/-. This was on 30.9.2003. Since the petitioner continued to occupy the official accommodation till 2006, this amount must have increased further. However, since now the petitioner has retired from service some leniency may be given to him in as much as the authorities shall now calculate the rent not as “three times” of the required rent but only as “twice” the required rent. The amount so calculated shall be deposited by the petitioner before the concerned authorities within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is issued to him. After such an amount is deposited, the authorities concerned shall release the entire arrears of pension of the petitioner as well as the gratuity and the petitioner shall be given his month to month pension regularly thereafter. It is, however, left open to the authorities to adjust the amount so recoverable from the petitioner from his arrears of gratuity, which is liable to be given to the petitioner. The petitioner shall move an application in this regard before the concerned authorities. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.11.2009 Avneet