Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N. KANNAKI versus THE CHIEF ENGINEER (BUILDINGS)

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N. Kannaki v. The Chief Engineer (Buildings) - W.P. No.9241 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 408 (23 June 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23/06/2005

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM A N D

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM W.P. No.9241 of 2005

and

WPMP.No.10054 of 2005

N. Kannaki .. Petitioner

-Vs-

1. The Chief Engineer (Buildings)

Public Works Department

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

2. The Executive Engineer

Public Works Department

South Presidency Division

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Registrar-General

High Court of Judicature

High Court Campus

Chennai 600 104. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writ of certiorari as stated therein. For petitioner ... Mr. M. Balasubramanian

For respondents... Mr. S. Srinivasan

Govt., Advocate for R.1 and 2

:O R D E R



(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer (Buildings) Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005, dated 23.02.2005 ordering for recovery of Rs.1,10,632/- from the petitioner, being the difference and penal rent for the Apartment No.S-13 in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai 2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner as seen from the affidavit is briefly stated hereunder:

According to the petitioner, while she was serving as XIth Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, due to non-availability of accommodation in the Judicial Officers' Quarters, on her application, she was allotted S-13, Residential Quarters in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai - 2, by the second respondent, who is in-charge of the allotment and maintenance of the Government Quarters in that locality. She used to pay the rent of Rs.1508/- directly, without any default for the said residential quarters by way of Demand Draft. While so, on 24.1 0.2000, the petitioner was transferred from Small Causes Court, Chennai to Jayamkondam in Trichy District as District Munsif. Again she was transferred to Trichy, Periyakulam and Thakkalai in Kanyakumari District upto 02.12.2002. During the relevant point of time, her family members were continuing to reside in the said quarters and she has not violated any of the clauses or undertaking given by her to the Public Works Department. Thereafter, i.e., on 02.12.2002, again, she was re-transferred to Chennai and posted as Assistant Editor, Tamil Law Journal (jPh;g;g[ jpul;L) in the campus of High Court and continue to reside in S-13 quarters. On 30.06.2003, she handed over possession and key of S-13 to the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Government Estate. According to her, since she had remitted rents regularly, there were no arrears of rent with respect to the said premises as on 30.06.2003. Thereafter, she was allotted Q-12 quarters in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai - 2, i.e., from 01.07.2003 and the rent is being deducted from her salary and remitted to Public Works Department as insisted.

3. The first respondent herein issued the impugned proceedings dated 23.02.2005 along with calculation memo that a sum of Rs.1,10,632/- shall be recovered from her pay in 60 monthly installments i.e., Rs.2,072/- for first month and Rs.1,840/- for 59 months, besides future rent from March, 2005 onwards for the present accommodation in Q-12 Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai - 2. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for respondents.

5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she was not given notice or opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order by the first respondent.

6. On going through the information furnished in the impugned order and all other materials, we are unable to accept the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons. It is not in dispute that she was allotted S-13 at Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai - 2, when she was working as Judicial Officer at Chennai. It is also not in dispute that the said allotment was made under the category "Service" and as and when any Government servant including the Judicial Officer either transferred or retired, is expected to hand over the premises in question. No doubt, it would be open to the person concerned to make a representation to continue the occupation of the Government Quarters for some time, depending upon the inconvenience, if any. Admittedly, no such order or permission was granted by the competent authority after her transfer from Chennai. In such a circumstance, in the light of the allotment conditions as well as the instructions of the Government, either in the form of Government Order or letter etc., the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced rent. Further, it is not in dispute that while forwarding the impugned proceedings, the respondents have also furnished break-up figures, viz., how they arrived and determined the amount of Rs.1 ,10,632/-. Though the petitioner has grievance with regard to the quantum of rent demanded, it cannot be said that she is unaware of the instructions of the Public Works Department, particularly, occupation of the Government building after her transfer. As said earlier, the petitioner is not an ordinary person and she is expected to know the procedure being followed in the case of Government accommodation. Though a request was made for leniency or sympathy, it is brought to our notice that even after determining the amount in terms of instructions / various orders, etc., the Chief Engineer himself has granted deduction spreading over for a period of 60 installments. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that no further indulgence is required at our hands. After finding that no valid ground for interference, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed. Index:Yes

Internet:Yes

kh

To

1. The Chief Engineer (Buildings)

Public Works Department

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

2. The Executive Engineer

Public Works Department

South Presidency Division

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

3. The Registrar-General

High Court of Judicature

High Court Campus

Chennai 600 104.




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.