CT/GD ARUN KUMAR TIWARI Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND OTHERS

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for following relief:

"(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari quashed the impugned order dated 13.12.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and allow the petitioner to stay at allotted quarter at Bhopal till he has not allotted the quarter at Bhilai. (ii) To direct the respondents not to recover the further penal rent and direct them to return the amount which has already been recovered by the authorities as penal rent. (iii) Any other order that Hon''ble the Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly be passed."

The admitted facts between the parties are that the petitioner while working as Constable in CISF, Bhopal was transferred to Bhilai by order dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure P- 1). In obedience of that order, petitioner joined at Bhilai on 01.03.2015. The respondents issued an order dated 19.5.15 whereby petitioner was directed to vacate the residential accommodation provided to him while remained posted at Bhopal. Since petitioner did not vacate the government accommodation, the respondents decided to impose penal rent on the petitioner.

Shri Sheetal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not given any government accommodation at Bhilai. He is not getting any house rent allowances at Bhilai. The township of Bhilai falls within the definition of "Left Wing Extremism" (LWE) affected area. As per the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 14.7.2010, the petitioner is entitled to retain his government accommodation, occupied prior to his posting in the LWE affected area. On the strength of this circular and pleadings in para 5.2 of the writ petition, it is argued that the action of respondents in directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation at Bhopal and imposing penal rent is totally impermissible and illegal. In addition, it is submitted that petitioner''s children are studying at Bhopal and, therefore, he may be permitted to retain accommodation till June, 2017.

Per contra, Shri Jain, learned counsel for respondents submits that in para 4 of the reply the respondents have denied that the Bhilai comes under LWE affected area. In support of this stand, the Circular No.53/11 dated 20.12.2011 was filed. In this Circular, the "Hard Area Tenures" are defined which includes ''LWE affected area''. It is submitted that as per this definition and Appendix-A, it is clear that Bhilai does not fall within LWE affected area.

Shri Sheetal Tiwari, fairly submits that although he has filed rejoinder, but did not dispute the aforesaid averments mentioned in the return. Putting it differently, the petitioner has not rebutted the averments of the return that Bhilai does not fall within the ambit of LWE affected area. In rejoinder petitioner has expressed about his personal problems/ inconveniences.

No other point is raised by learned counsel for the parties. The core issue before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled to retain government accommodation at Bhopal, after his joining at a new place i.e. Bhilai. The whole case of the petitioner is based on the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 14.7.2010 (Annexure P-6). This Circular does not contain the definition or list of LWE affected areas. The respondents have filed the circular of CISF dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure R-4) and a list of LWE affected areas and appended it as Appendix. 12 stations/units are identified by the CISF as LWE affected area. The Bhilai is not one such identified area. In absence of any rebuttal to the specific averments of the return, I am unable to hold that Bhilai comes under LWE affected area. No other material or provision is placed by petitioner to establish that he is presently working in a LWE affected area. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the Circular dated 14.7.2010 Annexure P-7. Thus, I am unable to hold that respondents have committed any error of law in directing the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation. No fault can be found in the action of respondents in imposing the penal rent on the petitioner.

So far merits of the case are concerned, petitioner is not

able to establish his case. However, since petitioner has expressed his personal difficulties and also raised ground of education of children etc., I am only inclined to direct that, if petitioner prefers a representation in this regard for retention of accommodation till June, 2017, the competent authority shall sympathetically consider and decide it in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of.