- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has retired on 31st May, 2000 and he retained the quarters given by the Government upto 16th July, 2002 and, therefore, a rent has been assessed by the respondents under Government Residential Allotment Rules enacted under the Bihar Service Code , which is enacted under first proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India whereby an order has been passed by respondent no. 3 dated 9th October, 2002 at Annexure 2 to the memo of present petition and the amount of Rs. 41,517/ - has been deducted from the retirement benefits of the present petitioner and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since retirement benefits were not paid, the petitioner has retained the quarters. Second contention raised is that some Deputy Secretary of same department of the State has allowed him to retain the quarters and, therefore, he has continued to retain the quarters; therefore, no such assessment can be made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that earlier there was also order passed by this Court for payment of retirement benefits and, therefore, also the quarters has been retained and no such order for high assessment of the rent can be passed. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that as per Government Residential Allotment Rules especially Rule 11 of this Rules permits maximum two months retention of the quarters, after the retirement. Petitioner has retired on 31st May, 2000. Otherwise also, Government is in the shortage of the residential quarters and therefore, the assessment has been made by the respondents of the rent for the quarter retained for the period beyond the rules. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the Deputy Secretary of the State can not carved out an exception of Rule 11, which is not in existence and, therefore, the order passed by respondent no. 3 dated 9th October, 2002 (Annexure 2) is absolutely in consonance with the aforesaid rules and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that present petitioner was working as Chargeman Grade -I with the respondents. He attained the age of superannuation on 31st May, 2000 and, therefore, maximum he can retain, quarter upto 31st July, 2000, but, he has retained the quarter upto 16th July, 2002. (ii) It also appears that Rule 11 of the Government Residential Allotment Rules, enacted under Rule 110 of the Bihar Service Code , which is enacted under first proviso to Article 309 of Constitution of India, permits the petitioner that he can retain the quarter for maximum two months after attaining the age of superannuation. If the retired employees retain the quarter for longer period, there are provisions for assessment of the rent on the basis of maximum cum penal rent and on that basis an order at Annexure 2 dated 9th October, 2002 has been passed by respondent no. 3. (iii) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that some Deputy Secretary of same Department of the Government has allowed the petitioner to retain the quarter and, therefore, he has retained and, therefore, the order at Annexure 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that a Deputy Secretary of the Government can not carved out an exception to Rule 11 of the Government Residential Allotment Rules. In fact, there is no such promise given by State that petitioner may retain a residential quarter beyond two months, after retirement and he will not be charged rent. There can not be an estoppel against the law. The order passed at Annexure 2 dated 9th October, 2002 by respondent no. 3 is in consonance with the aforesaid rules. Likewise, it has also been contended that as there was late payment of retirement benefits, he continued to retain the quarters. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that late payment of retirement benefits is not a valid reason for not to assess the rent as per Annexure 2 to the impugned order. Late payment of retirement benefits can always be taken care of by subsequent payment with interest, but, that does not permit the petitioner to retain the quarter beyond the Rule 11 of the aforesaid rules and, therefore, assessment made by respondent no. 3 at Annexure 2 is absolutely in consonance with the aforesaid rules. ;