The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.335 of 2014 Debendranath Das …. Petitioner Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
Decision
ORDER 18.12.2023 (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Affidavit filed in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the communication issued by the Director Technical Education & Training – Opp. Party No. 2 on 09.01.2014 under Annexure-14. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while continuing in the establishment of ITI, Berhampur, he was allotted with a quarter vide Quarter No. 2RA-9 vide order dtd.31.07.1999 under Annexure-1. It is contended that Petitioner vide order // 2 // dtd.22.07.2002 under Annexure-2 when was transferred to ITI, Phulbani, he challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1250(C) of 2002. In terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on 04.05.2002 in O.A. No. 1250(C) of 2002 Opp. Party NO. 2 vide order dtd.22.07.2002 passed an order under Annexure-2 by fixing the headquarter of the Petitioner temporarily at ITI, Chhatrapur under Rule 19 of the Orissa Service Code. It is contended that considering the request made by the Petitioner to retain the quarter so occupied by him, Petitioner was allowed to retain the quarter at ITI, Berhampur vide order issued on 01.03.2005 under Annexure-5. Subsequently, Petitioner vide order dtd.23.04.2005 under Annexure-7 was allotted with another quarter i.e. Quarter No. 2RB- 2 and Petitioner remained in occupation with the said quarter. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner because of the interim order passed by the Tribunal and the order passed under Annexure-2 remained in occupation with the quarter No. 2RB-2 till he was ultimately relieved from ITI, Chhatrapur vide order dtd.26.07.2012 under Annexure-9. In terms of the order dtd.26.07.2012 Petitioner was relieved from ITI, Chhatrapur and he was directed to join in ITI, Phulbani. 5.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner was relieved from ITI, Phulbani w.e.f.26.07.2012 vide order under Annexure-9 Petitioner taking into account his transfer to Phulbani, which is a KBK district made a request on 01.08.2012 before the Principal, ITI, Berhampu to allow him to retain quarter No. 2RB-2. Petitioner though made a prayer on 01.08.2012 before the Principal, ITI, Berhampur - Opp. Party No. 4, but no further decision was taken on either way. Petitioner accordingly remained in occupation with the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // quarter in question after 26.07.2012 till he ultimately vacated the same on 26.08.2016. 5.3. It is also contended that in view of the circular issued by the Govt. under Annexure-6, if an employee is transferred to a KBK district, he is eligible and entitled to remain in occupation with the quarter for a period of three (3) years from the date of such transfer. It is contended that since the Petitioner was ultimately transferred and relieved to join at ITI, Phulbani vide order dtd.26.07.2012 under Annexure-9 and Phulbani being a KBK district, Petitioner became eligible and entitled to remain in occupation with the quarter for a period of three (3) years from 26.07.2012. It is further contended that even though Petitioner was allowed to retain the quarter beyond 01.03.2002 and he was allotted with another quarter on 23.04.2005, but Opp. Party No. 4 without considering the occupation of the quarter with due permission wrote a letter to Opp. Party No. 3 on 08.11.2013 holding therein the Petitioner liable to be charged with market rent w.e.f.01.07.2005, amounting to Rs. 2,65,710/. It is contended that basing on the said demand raised by Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-11, Opp. Party No. 2 issued the letter to Opp. Party No. 3 on 09.01.2014 under Annexure-14 to take appropriate action on the same. 5.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since on the face of the order of transfer, Petitioner was allowed to retain the quarter till he was ultimately relieved on 26.07.2012 under Annexure-9, Petitioner is not liable to pay any penal rent for the period beyond 01.03.2005 till 26.07.2012. It is also contended that in view of the guideline governing the field so issued under Annexure-6, Petitioner is also eligible and entitled to occupy the Page 3 of 6 // 4 // quarter for another period of three (3) years starting from 26.07.2012. It is accordingly contended that the demand raised by the Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-9, basing on which Annexure-14 has been issued is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 6. Mr. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that the Petitioner while in occupation with the quarter so allotted in his favour vide order under Annexure-1, he was put under transfer to ITI, Phulbani. But in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1250(C) of 2002 while fixing his headquarter at ITI, Chhatrapur, he was allowed to retain the quarter considering the request made under Annexure-3. Petitioner thereafter was allotted with another quarter vide Quarter No. 2RB-2 by Opp. Party No. 4 on 23.04.2005. It is contended that Petitioner though was relieved from ITI, Chhatrapur, where his headquarter was so fixed w.e.f.26.07.2012, but after 26.07.2012 also he remained on occupation with the quarter without vacating the same. 6.1. Taking into account such action of the Petitioner in continuing with the occupation of the quarter beyond 26.07.2012, Opp. Party No. 4 vide Annexure-11, held the Petitioner liable to pay market rent w.e.f.01.05.2005 amounting to Rs. 2,65,710/-. It is also contended that even though Petitioner was relieved from ITI, Chhatrapur w.e.f.26.07.2012, but he remained in occupation of the quarter till he vacated the same only on 26.08.2016. It is accordingly contended that the Petitioner is also liable to pay penal rent for the period beyond 26.07.2012 till he vacated the quarter on 26.08.2016. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was allotted with the quarter vide order dtd.31.07.1999 under Annexure-1. As found from the record, Petitioner while continuing in ITI, Berhampur, he was put under transfer to ITI, Phulbani in the year 2002. However, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1250(C) of 2002, the authority concerned while fixing the headquarter of the Petitioner at ITI, Chhatrapur allowed him to retain the quarter as found from the communication issued by Opp. Party No. 2 on 01.03.2005 under Annexure-5. Thereafter, vide order dtd.23.04.2005 Opp. Party No. 4 allotted another quarter in favour of the Petitioner vide Quarter No. 2RB-2. As found from the record, Petitioner was ultimately relieved from ITI, Chhatrapur w.e.f.26.07.2012 under Annexure-9. After 26.07.2012 Petitioner as contended remained in occupation of the quarter basing on the request made by him on 01.08.2012. But there is no such document available in the case record showing that Petitioner was allowed to continue with the quarter beyond 26.07.2012. 7.1. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in view of the resolution issued by the G.A. Department on 16.08.2001 under Annexure-6, Petitioner since was ultimately relieved to join in ITI, Phulbani on 26.07.2012, he was eligible and entitled to remain in occupation with the quarter for another period of three (3) years from 26.07.2012, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision with regard to the liability of the Petitioner in paying penal rent of the quarter in occupation. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision without being guided by the demand raised under Annexure-11 so followed in Annexure-14 and by giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2023 16:53:22 Page 6 of 6