Arvind Singh Sengar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-P/16) by which the respondent No.2 has been directed to take action against the petitioner for getting the government accommodation vacated and the petitioner is also challenging the order of eviction dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure-P/8) passed by respondent No.4 by which petitioner has been directed to be evicted from the government accommodation. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is serving on the post of Joint Commissioner, Cooperative Societies and is posted at Bhopal. The petitioner has been given government accommodation E-115/40 Shivaji Nagar Bhopal in which he is residing. The petitioner was anyhow suspended and the suspension period is going on and his headquarter has been shifted from Sagar to Bhopal back vide order dated 23.06.2012 passed by respondent No.3. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to retain the government accommodation which was allotted to him.

On the other hand Shri Lal, learned Government Advocate submits that since the petitioner was suspended and was posted at Sagar, even if, lateron he has been directed to be posted at Bhopal during suspension period, he is not legally entitled to retain the government accommodation. Thus, it has been prayed that petition be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed.

True, after suspending the petitioner, his headquarter was shifted from Bhopal to Sagar but lateron vide order (Annexure-P/5) dated 23.06.2012 his headquarter has been changed to Bhopal where he is still posted. Hence, at present the petitioner is serving at Bhopal. Lateron vide letter dated 10.04.2012 (Annexure-P/14) the Commissioner Cooper-ative Societies recommended that the petitioner should be allowed to retain the Government Accommodation at Bhopal because his headquarter has been again shifted to Bhopal. After having received the said order of Commissioner, lateron vide order dated 20.06.2012 the first respondent directed the respondent No.2 to get the government accommodation vacated. According to me, since the petitioner''s headquarter has been shifted again from Sagar to Bhopal, he is entitled to retain the government accommodation for the simple reason that same is being provided to government employee so as to serve the department where he is posted. Since the petitioner is posted at Bhopal, the impugned order (Annexure-P/8) dated 30.08.2011 passed by the respondent No.4 and the order dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-P/16) passed by the respondent No.1 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to retain the said government quarter. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. No costs.