- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. This intra Court appeal arises from the judg ment dated 11. 12. 2006 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66565 of 2006 of the petitioner-appellant.
(2.) HEARD Shri V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vivek Mishra, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri R. K. Tiwari, learned Stand ing Counsel. The fact in brief, giving rise of the present litigation, are that the appellant was working as clerk in the Agricultural Department of the State of U. P. and was allotted a residential accommodation bearing No. D-73, Government Colony, Hussainabad, Jaunpur. He attained the age of superannuation on 31. 12. 2005 but thereafter he did not vacate the house within the period prescribed under the Rules. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur issued a letter dated 4. 7. 2006 directing him to vacate the accommodation in question and hand over the possession to the person whom it has been allotted after retirement of the appellant and also to pay the rent standard and penal, calculated as per the Rules being Rs. 6546 up to June, 2006. Despite the said notice the appellant did not vacate the accommo dation in question whereafter another letter was issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Nazarat, Collectorate, Jaunpur directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 6546/- and vacate the house in question by handing over possession to the new allottee failing which action as per Rule shall betaken. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), after failure of the appellant in vacating the accommoda tion in question despite the said notice, issued another notice dated 2. 12. 2006 informing him that instead of depositing Rs. 6546, he has illegally deposited only Rs. 3128 and also not vacated the accommodation in question despite shortage of residential accommodation to the employees working in the said district. He, therefore, directed the appellant to immediately vacate the accom modation and also deposit the rent of Rs. 14,053, which included the balance amount up to June, 2006 and further penal rent calculated for a period from the month of July, 2006 to November, 2006. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 4. 7. 2006, 22. 7. 2006 and 2. 12. 2006 the appellant approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition with the following reliefs: " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and quashing the impugned orders dated 14. 7. 2006, 22. 7. 2006 and 2. 12. 2006, contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus command ing the respondents not to eject the petitioner from premises in dispute pro vided he deposits three times higher rent which comes to Rs. 360/- + Rs. 45 water charges further till he so desires to occupy the premises or till he dies, whichever is earlier. (iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner for which the petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray. " The Hon'ble Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the relevant provisions found that the appellant after attaining the age of superannuation has no right to continue to occupy official accommodation and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has come up in this appeal.
(3.) SHRI V. C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on Rule 18-A (5) (c) of the Financial Hand Book and submitted that even after retirement a Govern ment servant, has a right to continue in accommodation on payment of monthly penal rent as calculated thereunder and so long as he is inclined to pay such rent, he cannot be evicted or be asked to vacate the official residence. He submit ted that the Rules nowhere provides that a Government servant after retirement has to vacate the official accommodation even if he is inclined to pay such rent, as provided under the Rules. Elaborating the submission, he contended that in these days of severe housing problem the Rules permit and enable a Government servant to retain an official accommodation even after retirement provided he pays rent in accordance with Rule 18-A (5) (c) and so long as such payment is made by the retired Government servant he cannot be said to be an illegal occupant of the official residence and cannot be asked to vacate the same. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission.;