IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3797 of 2009 PRATIMA JHA, wife of Late Hari Shankar Jha Resident ofHouse No. A-1, Road No.1 “R” Block, Patna, PS Secretariat, District Patna…Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Cane Secretary Sugar Cane Industries Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Building Secretary The Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Competent Authority The Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Estate Officer The Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. The District Magistrate, Patna, District Patna …. Respondents ----------- 02- 2.4.2009 Heard Mr. S B K Mangalam for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Bharti, learned Standing Counsel no.14. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.3.2009 (Annexure 11), passed by respondent no.4, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s representation for permission to continue in the government accommodation till such time the post-retirement benefits admissible to her in the capacity of the widow of the late employee is released. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. One Hari Shankar Jha, the then Section Officer in the Cane Department, Government of Bihar, died in harness on 6.2.2008. The petitioner, being the widow, and her family members continue to occupy the government accommodation because the post-retirement benefits have not been released to her. She had earlier moved this Court by preferring CWJC No. 652 of 2009 (Pratima Jha vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), which was disposed of by order dated 22.1.2009 (Annexure 10), whereby the - 2 - competent authority was directed to consider her representation promptly. It was further stated therein that the issue is governed by the Bihar Government Quarters (Rent and Recovery and Dispossession) Rules 1956. The petitioner’s representation has been rejected by the impugned order, wherein it is stated that the petitioner could have continued at the normal rate for a period of one month with effect from 6.2.2008, whereafter she could continue for a period of five months at the market rate. In other words, the petitioner could not continue beyond 6.8.2008, failing which she would be liable for forcible eviction. In fact, the order of forcible eviction has already been issued on 30.12.2008. The petitioner prays for mercy and submits that it is difficult for her to vacate the quarter because the post-retirement benefits have not been paid to her. 3. It is well known that the employee, or the family members, would be entitled to receive the post-retirement benefits only after the No-Objection Certificate is submitted with the competent authority to the effect that the official quarter has been vacated. It is evident that the petitioner has continued beyond the permissible period of occupation. The petitioner’s plea for continuance beyond the prescribed period amounts to putting the cart before the horse, that she can not be forced to vacate the quarter till such time the post –retirement benefits are released. Her plea for compassion cannot be acceded to in the teeth of the provisions of the said Rules. However, it appears to me on a perusal of the impugned order that it is not clearly stated whether or not the petitioner can - 3 - continue for a period of six months on payment of normal rate, or for one month only. In that view of the matter, taking a lenient view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall pay the normal rate upto 6.8.2008. 4. The writ petition is disposed of with this clarification/modification in the impugned order. ( S K Katriar ) mrl