High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:- 28-07-2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKARW.P.Nos.5045, 5924, 5931 to 5935, 6366 to 6369, 6539 to 6543, 8950,12204 and 14488 of 2008M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.12204 and 14488 of 2008M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.Nos. 5045, 5924, 5931 to 5935, 6366 to 6369,6539 to 6543, 8950, 12204 and 14488 of 2008K.Ramachandran.. Petitioner in WP.5045/08A.Aruna.. Petitioner in WP.5924/08P.Poomalai.. Petitioner in WP.5931/08B.Kamala Kannan.. Petitioner in WP.5932/08A.Marimuthu.. Petitioner in WP.5933/08S.Thangaraj.. Petitioner in WP.5934/08Murugan.. Petitioner in WP.5935/08Sivakumar.. Petitioner in WP.6366/08S.Sengodan.. Petitioner in WP.6367/08V.Rajan.. Petitioner in WP.6368/08S.Rajendran.. Petitioner in WP.6369/08M.Selvaraj.. Petitioner in WP.6539/08M.Govindasamy.. Petitioner in WP.6540/08P.Ravi.. Petitioner in WP.6541/08D.Ramachandran.. Petitioner in WP.6542/08S.Azhagarsamy.. Petitioner in WP.6543/08M.Muthusamy.. Petitioner in WP.8950/08A.P.Gandhi.. Petitioner in WP.12204/08C.Prabhakaran.. Petitioner in WP.14488/08VersusThe Superintendent of Police,Namakkal District ... RespondentWP.No.5045,5924,5931 to 5935 and 6366/08:These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for the relief of issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records relating to the impugned order passed by theRespondent vide his office proceedings No. 740,739,739,739,720,739,739,740/2007 respectively in No.P6/2108/2006 dated 28.12.2007 andquash the same as far as the petitioners are concerned andconsequently direct the respondent to repay the amount which wasdeducted from petitioner's salary in the month of January 2008, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ January and february 2008, January and february 2008, January andfebruary 2008, January and february,January and february 2008,January and february 2008, January and february 2008, respectively.WP.6367 to 6369, 6539 to 6543, 8950/08:These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for the relief of issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records relating to the impugned order passed by theRespondent vide his office proceedings No. 738,738,738,738,738,738,738,738,738/2007. in No.P6/2108/2006 dated 18.12.2007 and quash thesame as far as the petitioners are concerned and consequently directthe respondent to repay the amount which was deducted frompetitioner's salary in the month of January and 2008, January andfebruary 2008, January and february 2008, January and february 2008,January and february 2008,January and february 2008, January andfebruary 2008, January and february 2008,January and february 2008respectively.WP.12204and 14488 of 2008:These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, for the relief of issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus tocall for the records relating to the impugned order passed by theRespondent vide his office proceedings Nos. 720 and 740/07 inNo.P6/2108/2006 dated 07.12.2007 and quash the same as far as thepetitioners are concerned and consequently direct the respondent torepay the amount which was deducted from petitioner's salary in themonth of January 2008, and January 2008. For Petitioner :Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondent :Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Government Advocate C O M M O N O R D E RThe Writ Petition No.5045 of 2008 is filed praying to issue awrit of certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating tothe impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his officeproceedings No.739/2007 in Na.Ka.No.P6/2108/2006 dated 28.12.2007 andquash the same as far as the petitioner is concerned and consequentlydirect the respondent to repay the amount which was deducted frompetitioner's salary in the month of January 2008. The petitioners inthese cases are aggrieved by the order demanding penal rent foroccupying the quarters after transfer.2. Batch of writ petitions are filed for writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of recoverystating that penal rent is payable for overstaying in Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Quarters in violation of the Government Order. 3. The petitioners in all these cases are aggrieved by theorder demanding penal rent for occupying the quarters after transfer.The respondent demanded penal rent in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 568 Home(Police X) Department dated 31.5.2000. On the contrary, thepetitioner relied upon the G.O.Ms.No. 375, dated 6.9.2000 and statethat they are entitled to stay in the quarters even after transfer.There is no basis for the demand of penal rent. The impugnedproceedings are vague and bereft of details. 4. The very same issue was decided by this Court in abatch of writ petitions in WP No. 7314 to 7320 of 2008 on 23.7.2009and the impugned orders have been set aside and the authorities havebeen asked to re-consider the demand in de novo proceedings. Therelevant portion of the order reads as follows:-" In order to attract G.O.Ms.No.950 dated 29.06.1993 asamended by G.O.Ms.No.568 dated 31.05.2000, the petitionershould have overstayed in the Government Quarters. Theimpugned order is vague and bereft of details on this issue.The order is a non-speaking order and without proper detailsto show that the petitioner in each of the cases hasoverstayed. No material is placed before this Court tostate that the petitioner/employee has to stay in theQuarters only for a specified period. It is not disputedthat the G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 06.09.2000 is applicable to thecase of the petitioners so long as the petitioners serve inthe same district and within 30 Kms distance specifiedtherein. In such an event, the benefit of the G.O.Ms.No.375will enure to the petitioners. In the absence of specificground or charge in the impugned order that the petitionershave overstayed, the demand for penal rent cannot besustained. By a general Omni Bus order issued to all thepetitioners by changing of date alone, the respondentscannot demand penal rent by invoking G.O.Ms.No.950 dated29.06.1993 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.568 dated 31.05.2000.There should be details supported by reasons in eachproceedings before penal rent is demanded and an order isissued for recovery. In these cases there is some materialto suggest that petitioners overstayed during certainperiod, but the same is vague and not properly set out. Thedetails have to be spelt out clearly. Further, theimplication of G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 6.9.2000 has not beenconsidered. Hence, the entire issue requires reconsiderationon merits as there is no proper application of mind beforepassing the order of recovery. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In view of the above, the demand for Penal Rent cannotbe sustained as it is bereft of appropriate details andreasons. It has been issued without taking intoconsideration the benefit given to the petitioner inG.O.Ms.No.375 dated 06.09.2000. Hence the impugned orderdemanding Penal Rent has to be set aside and is accordinglyset aside. The respondent department has to however, considereach case independently, and issue fresh order on meritswith reason for demand of penal rent. The writ petitionsare ordered as above. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs."5. For the above said reasons, the impugned order in eachof the present writ petitions is set aside and the respondent/department is directed to consider each case independently and issuefresh orders on merits with reason for demand of penal interest. Thewrit petitions are ordered as above. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarraToThe Superintendent of Police,Namakkal District.+ 1 cc to Government Pleader,SR.32770W.P.Nos.5045, 5924, 5931 to 5935, 6366to 6369, 6539 to 6543, 8950, 12204 and14488 of 2008M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.12204 and14488 of 2008M.P.No.2 of 2008 in W.P.Nos. 5045, 5924,5931 to 5935, 6366 to 6369, 6539 to6543, 8950, 12204 and 14488 of 2008PUR(CO)EM/19.8.09