SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that he has been transferred from District Jail, Bareilly to Fatehgarh on 09.08.2008 but despite of having been granted time to vacate the official accommodation at Bareilly he has not vacated the same and in the circumstances the Senior Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2008 requiring the petitioner to pay a penal rent in accordance with the rules. Counsel for petitioner could not point out any illegality in the said order but submit that on account of his family problems he could not vacate the official accommodation, therefore, he may be allowed to retain the official accommodation till the end of the present session.
(2.) THE order dated 16.10.2008 was passed an year ago and the petitioner chose not to vacate the official accommodation at the end of Session 2008-09 itself but continue to retain the same and now seeks indulgence from this Court to continue his unauthorised occupation of the premises in question till the end of the present session which shows that the conduct of the petitioner is neither bona fide nor otherwise in accordance with rule. Whether an official who has been transferred from one place to another has a right to retain the official accommodation at the transferred place or not has been considered by this Court time and again. In respect to the employees of the State Government rules have been framed namely, Fundamental Rule 45 read with subsidiary Rule 18 and 18-A to 18-C, considering in the light of the above Rules a Division Bench (of which I was also a Member) in Ram Paras Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2008(3) ADJ 700=2008(2) ESC 1491 observed as under: "A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that available accommodations are not sufficient to meet the requirement of the serving Government servants, who are actually holding the post, and a large number of government servants in service are waiting in queue for their turn to get official accommodation after it is vacated by the Government servant, who has ceased to hold the post or is transferred under the Rules."
(3.) SIMILARLY in the context of the employees of the Central Government again a Division Bench considered the matter in Union of India and others Vs. Rajeev Kumar Tyagi and another, 2008(1) ADJ 673 and this Court observed in paras 8 and 9 of the judgement as under: "8.A government servant holding a transferable post cannot be allowed to retain official accommodation at two places, particularly at the place wherefrom he has been transferred. Further he cannot retain official accommodation at the place of transfer beyond the period permissible in Rules. No provision has been shown to us by respondent no.1 that he could have retained official accommodation at Rampur also despite the fact that he has been allotted official accommodation at Moradabad. 9. . . . . . . Moreover, allotment or non allotment of official accommodation at the place of posting does not vest any right upon the Government employee to retain official residence wherefrom he has been transferred. Irrespective of the fact that whether the government servant has been or not has been allotted official accommodation at the place where he has been transferred, he has to vacate the official accommodation at the place wherefrom he has been transferred after the period permitted under the Rules is expired." ;