HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3875 of 2008 Dated: 11-06-2010 Between: R. Ramaiah. … Petitioner And The Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (Head Quarters), New Delhi & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3875 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, has filed this writ petition, questioning the Office Memorandum, dated 8th of May 2007, issued in Proceedings No.NOC/11011/37/CISF/CPT/QM/07-2289. By the aforesaid order, respondents have ordered to collect penal rent of Rs.3,870/- per month from the petitioner for the period from 11.07.2006 to 02.04.2007. The petitioner was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, and is posted in Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Bhanur in Medak District. During his posting at Bhanur, he was allotted a family quarter. Later, he was transferred from BDL, Bhanur to Kochin in the month of June 2006, and he was allowed to retain the quarter up to 10.07.2006. But, from 11.07.2006, he overstayed in the quarters, and ultimately, vacated it only on 02.04.2007. In that view of the matter, respondents have passed the impugned order to recover penal rent of Rs.3,870/- per month for the aforesaid period i.e. from 11.07.2006 to 02.04.2007. This writ petition was filed in the month of February 2008, and this Court granted interim stay of recovery, on 26th of February 2008. By that time, an amount of Rs.21,060/- was already recovered and balance amount of Rs.11,450/- was payable. Respondents have not collected the said amount of Rs.11,450/- in view of the order, dated 26th February 2008, passed by this Court. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.C.Vani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that after his transfer to Kochin, on the application filed by the petitioner, he was already permitted to retire under voluntary retirement scheme, and as the petitioner has paid the balance penal rent of Rs.11,450/-, his retiral benefits are settled and paid. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner was authorised to stay in the quarter upto 10.07.2006, but as much as his daughter was studying 10th Class in Kendriya Vidyalaya during the academic year 2006-07, the same necessitated the petitioner to overstay in the quarter. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, respondents cannot impose any penal rent, particularly at the rate of Rs.3,870/- per month. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. While giving several particulars with regard to posting of the petitioner in various stations, it is stated that after his transfer from BDL, Bhanur to Kochin, he was permitted to retain the family quarter only for one month i.e. up to 10.07.2006, but inspite of the same, the petitioner did not vacate the quarters after the permitted period, as such, as per the BDL, Bhanur Management Rules, the penal rent is fixed and recovered. Even according to the petitioner, the authorisation was only for a period of one month after his transfer, as such, he ought to have vacated the quarter by 10.07.2006. Merely because the daughter of the petitioner was studying 10th class at the relevant time, that by itself, is no ground to overstay in the quarter, in the absence of any permission from the respondent- employer. If, for any reasons, there is necessity to stay further, the petitioner ought to have taken the permission to stay, but even after the permitted period is over, on his own, he should not have continued in the quarter for about 8 months. In that view of the matter, when the petitioner has unauthorisedly stayed in the quarter, I do not find any illegality on the part of respondents in collecting the penal rent for such period. In any event, it is also to be noticed that by the time the petitioner approached this Court, five months’ penal rent was already recovered, and only an amount of Rs.11,450/- was payable. Now, it is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that even the said amount is paid in view of the voluntary retirement taken by the petitioner and his retiral benefits are settled and paid. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th June 2010 ajr