Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K. RAI AND OTHERS � versus UNION OF INDIA THRU' THE SECY. AND OTHERS '

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K. Rai And Others � v. Union Of India Thru' The Secy. And Others ' - WRIT - C No. 3302 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3223 (13 February 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. 36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3302 of 2006

K.K. Rai & Ors.           ------- Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ------- Respondents

     ----------------

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.

Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri V.R. Agrawal for IFFCO, Phulpur and Shri Pankaj Nakvi for IFFCO, Aonla and Shri H.C. Pathak for respondent nos. 1 and 2. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides.

It appears  that the security of IFFCO, Phulpur and IFFCO, Aonla was entrusted to the CISF and for that purpose, the CISF personnel including the 81 petitioners in this writ petition, were posted either at IFFCO, Phulpur or IFFCO, Aonla.

Under conditions of their service, the CISF personnel are entitled to be provided free lodging, which is specified in Section 61 of the CISF Act. The accommodation had been provided by  IFFCO, Phulpur and IFFCO, Aonla where these persons were living, some of them with their families and they had got their children admitted to various educational institutions at the place of their posting.

Suddenly, in the midstt of the academic session, in December, 2005, the CISF  was withdrawn from both  IFFCO, Phulpur and IFFCO, Aonla, and accordingly, these CISF personnel, excluding certain personnel, who belonged to a rear party, have been posted/ transferred elsewhere.

The petitioners have come to this Court for a direction for permitting them to retain the residential accommodation where they were living at  IFFCO, Phulpur and IFFCO, Aonla till the end of the academic session to enable their children to complete their education in the current academic year and also to make alternative arrangements for their families.

After giving parties an opportunity, we feel that such of the petitioners, whose children are studying below Class 9th, can get their children transferred to other educational institutions either at the place they are posted or to other places. However, those petitioners, whose children are studying in Class 9th and above, may find it extremely difficult and expensive to make such shifting as it is common knowledge that from Class 9th onward children these days join various coachings where advance fees is paid for the entire year. Moreover, such shifting, considering the courses of Class 9, 10 and above, may cause irreparable loss to the academic careers  of these children, who are not at fault.

On the other side, the IFFCO, Phulpur and IFFCO, Aonla have made alternative security arrangements and they will require accommodation, which will be provided to the new security staff. Balancing these two quarters, we find from the facts stated by Shri V.R. Agrawal that at  IFFCO, Phulpur 2 barracks out of total of 4 barracks, 8 D-type quarters out of 48 such quarters, and 7 out of 8 C-type quarters, have been vacated by the CISF personnel. Similarly, we find from the facts stated by Shri Pankaj Nakvi that at IFFCO, Aonla, out of 77 quarters given to CISF personnel, 30 have been vacated.

In view of the order which we propose to pass on the lines mentioned above certain more accommodation will become available both at  IFFCO, Phulpur and IFFCO, Aonla for being provided to the new security agency. We are of the opinion that from today, i.e., 13th February, 2006 till 13th May, 2006 is just a matter of three months and, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the following 19 petitioners formerly posted at IFFCO, Phulpur and the following 19 petitioners posted at IFFCO, Aonla, may be allowed by the IFFCO to retain the accommodation, which had been given to them, till 13th May, 2006 for the use of their family:-

Petitioners posted at IFFCO, Phulpur:-

1.K.K. Rai

2.P.N. Tiwari

3.Karamjit Singh

4.T.P. Singh

5.Harbanah Singh

6.Ram Bharose

7.Y.P. Gupta

8.D.N. Singh

9.S.C. Sharma

10. Lal Chand

11. N.K. Chourasiya

12. Amar Pal

   13. S.K.D. Dubey

   14. R. Pandey

   15. Narender Singh

   16. S.S. Yadav

   17. A.K. Shukla

   18. S.R. Prasad

   19. R.C. Chaturvedi

Petitioners posted at IFFCO, Aonla:-

   1. G.S. Rawat

   2. R.B. Singh

   3. Babu Ram

   4. Surender Singh

   5. J.S. Bisht

   6. Shyam Singh

   7. Umesh Singh

   8. Nandan Singh

   9. Gopal Singh

   10.  Mohan Chand

   11. A.A. Khan

   12. Subash Chand

    13. D.P. Joshi

    14. R.P. Sharma

    15. Badre Alam

    16. Pankaj Kumar

    17. Bhagwati Prasad

    18. R.K. Sharma

    19.Sudhir Kumar

The above mentioned 38 persons will vacate the accommodation on or before 13th May, 2006 positively as by that time, the examinations of the children should be over. In case these 38 persons still want to continue their children education at Phulpur or Aonla, they may obtain private accommodation where they can shift their families on or before the aforesaid date of 13th May, 2006.

The next question which arises is about the payment of the rent of these retained accommodations to the IFFCO, Phulpur or IFFCO, Aonla.

Although, technically the CISF may claim that it is not bound to provide rent free accommodation to these CISF personnel after they have been transferred, but in view of the fact that the CISF has been suddenly withdrawn in the midst of the academic session, we direct the CISF to negotiate the amount payable for these accommodations up to 13th May, 2006 at the IFFCO, Phulpur or IFFCO, Aonla as the case may be, and to make payment of the same to the IFFCO. The rent so paid by the CISF will not be recovered from any of these 38 persons unless they obtain and use rent free accommodation at the new place of their posting.

Another issue raised by the petitioners' side is that IFFCO has now decided to charge Rs. 4/- per unit for the electricity used or consumed by the petitioners.

Considering the circumstances, we further direct the IFFCO not to charge more than the rate, which the IFFCO has to pay for such electricity from the 38 persons, who have been allowed to retain the accommodation.

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

13.2.2006

VKS


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.