Indal Singh vs State of U.P.Through Principal Secy.Home Dept.Lucknow

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—List and connect with Writ Petition No. 513 (S/S) of 2011.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed for recovery of arrears of rent calculated as per Rule 18Ka,? VolumeII (Part 2 to 4) of the U.P. Financial Handbook As per said rule, any government employee is entitled to pay normal rent for a period of one month after his transfer and thereafter for the next two months, the rent will be doubled to the normal rent and thereafter three times to the normal rent for the remaining period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred on 30.6.2009 from Jhansi to Kanpur. He was allotted a quarter at Jhansi. Since he has not been allotted any accommodation at Kanpur, therefore, he could not vacate the premises/quarter earlier. Now he has vacated the premises/quarter on 30.6.2009. However, the opposite parties, in most arbitrary manner, have imposed the recovery of alleged arrears of rent on the petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has paid electricity dues, water dues, etc. The petitioner has not been allotted any accommodation at the transferred place, therefore, he has taken accommodation on rent in a private colony and has shifted his family there.

Prima facie, the recovery of the alleged arrears of rent appears to be unreasonable in view of departmental letter dated 15th of November, 1996.

In view of above, learned Standing Counsel shall file counter affidavit within six weeks.

List thereafter.

Meanwhile, the petitioner shall pay the normal rent for the period of occupation of the premises/quarter in question and he shall not be compelled to pay the excess amount than the normal rent for the period the premises/quarter was under occupation of the petitioner.