2' ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DMSIONBENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON'BLESHRI V.K.SHRJVASTAVA.J. PETIT!QNER RESPgNDENTS W.P. N0.1172 of 2001 Rasid Ali Aii Siddiqui S/o late Shri Abid Ali, aged about 63 years, Retired UDC, PWD, M.P. Govt. R/o P-4, Adarsh Nagar, Durg C.G. Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Madhya Pradesh through The Secretary, PWDiMantralaya Raipur District Raipur, C.G. 492001 2. The Engineer-in-Chief / Chief Engineer, PWD Raipur. 3. The Executive | Engineer, PWD Khairagarh Division, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 4. Presiding OfRcer / Member M.P. State Administratjve Tribunal, Raipur C.G. 492001 I Present: Shri Amiyakant TiwarE, counsei for the petitioner.' Shri Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State / respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th March, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed by H.L. Dattu, C.J. . This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Raipur ('the Tribunai' for short) in O.A. No.410/99, dated 07.06.2001. By the impugned order the Tribunal has rejected the application fiied by the appiicant / petitioner for a direction to the respondents to refund the gratuityamountthat was recovered from the applicant / petitioner. •^. (...^ r (2) The brief facts are:- The petitioner was a Government Servant employed in the Public Works Department. While he was in service, he was allotted a Government quarter. HQ was paying monthly rent of Rs.35/-. He was transferred from the place where he was working earlier to a different piace, but he continued to occupy the allotted quarter^ with the prior permission of the competent authority. (3) Since the petitioner had overstayed in the ailotted quarter though he was transferred from the piace where he was working earJier, the respondents have imposed penal rentals and had directed to recover the same. (4) After the petitioner retired from service, he had approached the Tribunal for a direction to the respondents to refund whatever that was recovered from the gratuity amount payabie to him. The Tribunal has rejected the request on the ground that because of the circular instructions dated 31.01.92, the Government has the powerto recover the pena! rentals from the gratuity amount payable to the Govemment Servant. (5) Two issues would arise in this case. First and foremost is whether the respondents could have imposed penal rentals on the petitioner on the ground that he had overstayed in the aliotted Government quarter?and the second issue is whether the respondents could recover the said penal rentals from the gratuity amount payable to the applicant / petitioner. (6) So far as first issue is concerned, it is an admitted fact that while he was in service he was allotted a Government quarter. It is aiso an 23 admitted fact that he was transferred from the place of posting to different places at different times. When he was transferred to a different place he occupied the Government quarteft but with prior permission ofthe competentauthority. Therefore, his continuation to stay in the Government quarter can never be construed as an unauthorized occupation of the Government quarter^. Therefore, the respondents would not be justified in imposing penal rentals on the petitioner. So far as the second issue is concemed, the law on the point is well settled, but the Tribunal has reiied upon a circular said to have been issued by the State Government dated 31.01 .92. A perusal of the said circular would only indicate that the Government has power to retain gratuity amount payable to an emp!oyee, but it does not speak of recovery of any arrears payable to the Government retired employee. (7) In the instant case, resorting to the aforesaid circuiar, respondents have recovered the penal rentals from the gratuity payabie to the petitioner. This, in our opinion, was impermissible. The Tribunal could not have misread the circular instructions issued by the State Government and held the same against the petitioner. (8) In that view of the matter, both the issues we have framed for our consideration and decision require to be answered in favour of the appEicant / petitioner. Therefore, we cannot sustain the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly the following: QRDEi^ (i) The petition is allowed. 24 (ii) The impugned order passed by the Tribuna! in O.A. No.410/99 dated 7.6.2001 is set aside. (iii) A direction is issued to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.33,295/- to the petitioneras expeditiously as possible and also to pay interest @ 6% on the aforesaid amount from the date it was c recovered tit! the date it is paid. Ordered accordingly./ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge 'N