Naresh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are husband and wife. The petitioner who was working as an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department and undertaking the project of Pradhan Mantri Gramin Sarak Yojna. In his official capacity, he was transferred on 14.08.2014 to Narendra Nagar District Tehri Garhwal. At Kotdwar when he was discharging his official responsibilities as an Assistant Engineer, he was allotted an official accommodation being numbered as III/6, Public Works Department, Colony Badrinath Road, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. In between their stay at Kotdwar, they have been some matrimonial discord amongst the petitioner and respondent No.4. Consequently, the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, it was registered as Case No.13 of 2014. Simultaneously, there was Domestic Violence Act proceedings also which were also initiated by respondent No.4 which was numbered as Misc. Criminal Case No.105 of 2013., In the proceedings under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act she has already filed an application and respondent No.4 has also filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking a direction for grant of pendente lite maintenance.

It is a case of the petitioner as a consequence of his order of transfer from Kotdwar to Narendranagar, he has vacated the premises which was officially allotted to him and has joined at his transfer place where he was not provided with the official accommodation, consequently, he has taken a property on rent and the rent agreement has been placed on record. On the other hand the respondent No.4 since she continued to occupy the accommodation officially allotted to the petitioner at Kotdwar, because at that point of time their inter se relationship of husband and wife was cordial and the dispute had started germinating at that point of time the wife/respondent No.4 used to reside alongwith the petitioner in the said accommodation.

As far as view of this Court is concerned, as soon as the petitioner stands transferred vide order dated 14.08.2014 and he joins at the transfer place, her lien to continue to occupy the official accommodation allotted to the husband at Kotdwar ceases and that is why it is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition also that immediately on the transfer of the services from Kotdwar to Narendernagar, he had vacated the premises and handed over the possession of the quarter allotted to him to the department but the respondent No.4 continued to reside in premises in question, consequently, the petitioner was served with the impugned letter dated 14.05.2015 as passed by respondent No.2 making the deduction of House Rent Allowance from his salary for the accommodation which stood occupied by the respondent No.4 at Kotdwar after his transfer to Narendra nagar.

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that since in compliance of order of transfer from Kotdwar to Narendranagar, he has joined at transfer place and has handed over the accommodation officially allotted to him by the respondents, it cannot be harnessed with the liability to pay the house rent allowances as sought to be deducted by the impugned letter dated 14.05.2015, because after 14.05.2015 since he does not occupy the premises and rather the same was occupied by respondent No.4, who otherwise has got no lien to occupy the premises in question. The petitioner cannot be made responsible to pay House Rent Allowance as claimed by impugned order.

In response to it, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner since being the husband he owes an honourous duty to provide a suitable accommodation to respondent No.4 to reside which is also evident as per the provisions contained under Domestic Violence Act, proceedings of which is registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.105 of 2013.

Be that as it may whatsoever rights the respondent No.4 has got to claim against the petitioner-husband to maintain his wife and to provide an accommodation for residence would be confined to the private assets or private property of the petitioner and under the background of the fact that there happens to be matrimonial proceedings pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 cannot be permitted to continue to occupy the official accommodation allotted to the petitioner, more particularly, when the petitioner on his transfer has vacated the same and handed over the possession to the department and after the conclusion of the process of handing over the possession of the accommodation to the department, the petitioner cannot be said to have continued to occupy the official accommodation and hence if at all the occupation of the premises continues thereafter, after vacating the premises by the petitioner, it cannot be harnessed upon the petitioner, because officially he has vacated the premises and if the official accommodation is continued to be occupied by respondent No.4, it would be the liability of the respondent No.4 to meet with the expenses of the House Rent which would be payable to the department, or the department can claim damages for unauthorized occupancy of premises in question from respondent No.4.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand raised by letter dated 14.05.2015 from the petitioner for the payment of House Rent Allowances from the petitioner after the petitioner having vacated the premises after the order of his transfer, if at all any liability accrues to meet House Rent, it has to be owed by respondent No.4, who does not hold any lien to continue to occupy the accommodation as there does not exist any master-servant relationship between respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.1 to 3.

In these circumstances, the respondent No.4 is directed to vacate the premises which was officially occupied by the petitioner prior his transfer to Narendranagar within a period of one month from today and it would be open for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take an appropriate action for recovery of the damages for use of the State property from respondent No.4.

Subject to above observations, the writ petition stands allowed.

However, there would be no order as to cost.