IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8766 of 2009 Between: CH.Uma Maheswar Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep by its Chief General Manager, Manugur Division, Manugur Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8766 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in collecting the amount of Rs.67,500/-towards penal rent from July, 2005 to June, 2007 for the quarter bearing No.T2 397, PV Colony, Manuguru, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was allotted a residential quarter while he was working in Manuguru. Later on, he was transferred to places like Yellandu and Ramagundam. In spite of his transfer, he did not vacate the quarters at Manuguru. Therefore, the respondent has levied penal charges on the petitioner for his unauthorized occupation of the quarters and recovered the same from out of his salary. This action is questioned in the writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not provided with quarters at Yellandu and Ramagundam where he was transferred and, therefore, there is no justification for levying penal charges on the petitioner for occupying the quarters at Manuguru. Though reference to a purported circular No.MNG/OC- 2/W-3/1963 was made in the affidavit and it was averred therein that penal charges are not leviable according to the said circular, the petitioner failed to file a copy of the said circular. Ordinarily, when an employee is transferred, he is liable to surrender official quarters occupied by him at the previous place of working. Unless the respondent-Company has taken a policy decision not to levy penal charges, the petitioner cannot claim any exemption from payment of penal charges for his unauthorized occupation even after his transfer. As the petitioner failed to show any such policy decision of the respondent, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.11486 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:28.04.2009 usd