IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9665 of 2005 KAMESHWAR PRASAD OJHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 7.4.2010. Heard Mr. Ashuthosh Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Indrajeet Singh, learned counsel representing the Bihar State Water Board and Mr. Himanshu Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to G.A.5 for the State. The petitioner superannuated from the services of the Public Health Engineering Department with effect from 31.1.2001 while holding the post of Assistant Engineer. During the service period, the petitioner had been allotted a government quarter by his Controlling department which is said to belong to the Patna Water Board. As there was extra ordinary delay in finalization of the post retiral benefits hence, the petitioner continued to occupy the quarter in question and vacated the same on 10.3.2004. Admitted position is that the entire post retiral benefits to which the petitioner is found entitled, have since been paid to him. The present writ petition had occasioned - 2 - by reason of an order dated 28.4.2005 of the Treasury Officer, Secretariat Treasury, Nirman Bhawan, Patna issued to the Branch Manager, of the State Bank of India requiring him to recover an amount of Rs.87,550/-said to be the penal rent of the government quarter occupied by the petitioner. It is at this stage, that the petitioner has come before this Court through this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the court towards the fact that while he was in service, an amount of Rs.37/ per month was being deducted from his monthly salary by way of monthly rent of the quarter in question. It has also come on record that the standard rent for the quarter in question was Rs.132/per month. Indisputedly, for non-payment of the retiral benefits, the petitioner had moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.14938 of 2001 which was disposed of with a direction for payment of the admissible claims. The non-compliance of the said order, led to filing of a contempt application by the petitioner giving rise to M.J.C.No.2234 of 2004. - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was after filing of the contempt application that the pending retiral dues were cleared by the respondents. He thus submits that as the respondents themselves were in default for not making payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner, hence, they can not be permitted to charge penal rent from the petitioner. He submits that the usual rent of the quarter in question was Rs.37/ per month and the standard rent was Rs.132/- per month and which can be realized by the respondents. He further submits that in any view of the fact that the petitioner was an employee of PHED, the Water Board had no jurisdiction to raise any claim of rent from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Water Board opposes the prayer made in the writ petition and submits that as indisputedly the petitioner overstayed in the quarter in question and hence, he is liable for payment of the penal rent which has been estimated at Rs.87,550/- vide Annexure- 2. I have heard the rival contentions of the respective parties and perused the materials on - 4 - record. I find that there are three different estimates as regarding the rent in question. Whereas an order dated 3.9.2003 of the Secretary, Water Board estimates the monthly rent at Rs.2550 per month placed at Annexure-H of the counter affidavit, a subsequent order dated 15.6.2005 of the Secretary placed at Annexure-3 of the writ petition has reduced the said amount to Rs.2,000/- per month and according to which the amount ought to have been about Rs.74,000/-. The Treasury Officer exceeding either of the two requests, has made a demand of Rs.87,550/-. Thus, there are three different estimates regarding the rent of the quarter in question. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.20,000/- has since been recovered from the pensionary entitlements of the petitioner and which position is also admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Water Board. Having regard to the circumstances, where admittedly the retiral benefits of the petitioner were disbursed only after filing of the contempt application before this Court in - 5 - the year 2004 and that soon thereafter the petitioner vacated the quarter in question on 10.3.2004 coupled with an important aspect that a recovery of Rs.20,000/- has been made from the pensionary entitlement of the petitioner by way of penal rent, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served in treating the recovery of Rs.20,000/- from the pensionary entitlements of the petitioner as a full and final settlement accounts between the parties on the issue of recovery of rental for the quarter in question. Having held as such, the order as contained in Annexure-2 is set aside and the concerned authorities of the state of Bihar, the Patna Water Board and the State Bank of India are restrained from effecting any further recovery from the pensionary entitlements of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. (Jyoti Saran,J.) ahk