Santosh Singh vs Union of India

Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents / Union of India.

Today, the matter is listed on default.

Though no application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, but considering the delay which is of only 10 days in preferring the present appeal, we condone the delay.

The present writ appeal is presented against an order dated 13.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 666 of 2020, whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (appellant herein) was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while holding the post of Head Constable at Central Industrial Security Force, Mumbai was allotted a government residential quarter, where he was residing along with his family while discharging his duties at his place of posting at Mumbai. His daughter was pursuing studies in Class 9th in the academic session 2018-19. The appellant was transferred from Mumbai to K.S.T.P.P., Korba, District -Korba (C.G.) and was relieved on 16.07.2018. According to the norms, the appellant has to vacate the residential quarter allotted to him in Mumbai within two months from the date of his joining at his transferred place. The appellant submitted an application for extension of time for vacating the residential quarter on the ground that his daughter is studying in Central School, Mumbai in Class-9th and therefore, till completion of academic session he may be permitted to retain the quarter which was accepted and permission to retain the quarter till 31.03.2019 was granted. The appellant considering that his daughter is to appear in the 10th Board Examination in the next session i.e. 2019-20 and her shifting will cause hindrance in her studies, submitted an application for further extension of the period for retaining the allotted quarter at Mumbai for the academic session 2019-20, which was rejected and letter/notice was issued on 24.10.2019 for recovery of penal rent. Further request for retention of government accommodation was rejected vide Annexure P-1 (in the writ petition) dated 13.11.2019, observing the circular No.10/2016 dated 13.10.2016, which made the appellant to file the writ petition, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has been transferred at the middle of the academic session and the appellant cannot change his daughter’s school at the middle of the session. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that in the circular dated 13.09.2016 it is specifically mentioned that if someone is transferred in the middle of the academic session when his/her son/daughter is studying in Class IX or XI in that particular academic session then Sector I-G may consider the request for retaining the family accommodation at the old location till the end of Class X or XII academic session. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the daughter of the appellant has completed Class X in the academic sessions 2019-20 and after declaration of final result, the appellant has vacated the government accommodation.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submission and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has observed that the application of appellant for retaining the quarter till completion of academic session in which he was transferred was considered. After completion of said academic session, daughter of petitioner after promotion came in Class 10th. Clause 3 (VI) of the circular talks about further retention of quarter for prosecuting studies in Class 10th or 12th. In a very genuine nature of claim including non- availability of board of examination at new station or non allotment of house at new station, the request for retention of quarter can be considered. The appellant in his petition has not mentioned that Board of Examination at the new station is not available nor raised a ground that he was not allotted the government accommodations at his transferred place. Daughter of appellant is studying in Central School, and it is not a case of appellant that at the transferred place Central School is not available. Pleadings made in the reply of the respondents that appellant has not applied for allotment of government accommodation at his transferred place i.e. Korba though vacant quarters were available in the unit is not rebuted by filing rejoinder.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).