Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNIL KUMAR KESTAWAL versus THE COMMANDANT 108 BN.C.R.P.F./RAPID A.FORCE MEERUT & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sunil Kumar Kestawal v. The Commandant 108 Bn.C.R.P.F./Rapid A.Force Meerut & Others - WRIT - A No. 68101 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21138 (14 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68101 of 2006

Sunil Kumar Kestawal

Versus

The Commandant 108 Bn. & another

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner has approached this Court requesting therein that order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the Commandant, respondent no. 1 is liable to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to retain Quarter No. 4 Type III. 108th Battalion CRPF and penal rent be not recovered from the petitioner.

Brief facts giving rise to instant writ petition is that petitioner while being posted at Meerut on 01.04.2005 was allotted residential accommodation. Petitioner has been promoted as Inspector (M) and thereafter transferred to 123 Battalion CRPF Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir) and has been relieved from Meerut on 01.08.2005. Petitioner was asked to vacate said premises in question by notice dated 19.07.2005 before leaving to join. Petitioner on 01.08.2005 requested for retaining the said accommodation in question. On 05.10.2005 petitioner was asked to vacate said accommodation by 01.01.006. Petitioner in his turn requested for extension of period of his retention of accommodation. Thereafter petitioner was permitted to retain said accommodation up to 31.03.2006 and thereafter asked to vacate the said accommodation failing which penal rent was to be charged. Petitioner has not vacated the said premises and claimed that he has been posted at Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir), as such petitioner be permitted to retain the said accommodation.  Request of petitioner has not been accepted and penal rent has been directed to be charged as such present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case petitioner has been posted at Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir) as such petitioner should be permitted to retain said accommodation and further action of respondent is totally in contravention of the Circular dated 18.02.2002 and 29.08.2003 as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Dr. A.K.Nigam, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri C.B. Singh, Advocate on the other hand contended that said Circulars will not apply qua the case of the petitioner as at Meerut there are no pool accommodations and further enough accommodation has already been accorded to the petitioner and petitioner has got no right to retain the aforesaid accommodation after his transfer from Meerut.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that petitioner on being posted at Meerut on 01.04.2005 was allotted residential accommodation. Petitioner has been promoted and has been transferred on 01.08.2005. Request of the petitioner was accepted and he was permitted to retain said accommodation up to 31.03.2006. Once petitioner has been transferred then he has no right whatsoever to retain the accommodation which has been allotted to him while he was posted at Meerut. Petitioner is duty bound to vacate the same. Impugned order in question clearly reflects that at Meerut campus there are 185 quarters available and stands allotted in favour of incumbents who are posted there and even at present movement 196 soldiers are residing out side the campus and 296 incumbents are in waiting. In this background it has been contended that there is shortage and dearth of accommodation and it is practically impossible to accommodate the petitioner. Thus, cogent reason has been given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner qua his continuance in retaining the quarter which was allotted to him on account of being posted at Meerut.

Two Circulars which has been relied upon by the petitioner qua incumbents who are posted in Jammu & Kashmir will not come to the rescue of the petitioner, inasmuch as finding of fact has been returned that there are no pool accommodation constructed in General Pool and residential accommodations which are there for staffs are much less qua the incumbents who are posted in the disturbed area. Thus, cogent reason has been given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

Consequently no interference is warranted, as such writ petition lacks substance and same is dismissed.      

14.12.2006

Dhruv


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.