Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 44679 of 2010 Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Pandey And Others Respondent :- Railway Board, Rail Bhawan And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Omkar Nath Rai Respondent Counsel :- Govind Saran Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Govind Saran, learned
counsel for the respondents.
Petitioners are employees of Railway Protection Force. They were posted in
Moughalsarai. Now Petitioner no.1 has been transferred to Danapur,
petitioner no.2 to Dildar Nagar and petitioner no.3 to Patna. At the time when
they were working before the order of transfer, were allotted official
accommodation. In spite of the aforesaid order of transfer, the petitioners have
not vacated the official accommodation and now some penal rent is being
charged from the petitioners in lieu of the unauthorised accommodation of the
said official accommodation. According to the petitioners, in view of Railway
Board Circular dated 17.8.2001, the petitioners can retain the official
accommodation for a period of two years till the allotment of the new quarter
at the place of posting is made.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of
Railway Protection Force Rules 1987 Rule 120.2 states as follows:
“120.2 It shall be a condition of his service that he shall vacate the
accommodation on his ceasing to be a member of the Force or on his transfer
from that place or whenever an officer not below the rank of Security
Commission, for reasons to be recorded in writing, finds it necessary and
expedient for him to do so.”
Taking support of the aforesaid provision, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that it is a condition of service that an employee has to vacate the
official accommodation on his transfer from the place. In such circumstances,
he submits that the benefit of the Railway Board Circular dated 17.8.2001 can
be available to the petitioners unless and until there is a permission. Up till
date no permission has been granted. Therefore, till the grant of permission
after the order of transfer, he will be treated to be unauthorised occupant.
According to the petitioners they have submitted an application to that effect
to the competent authority but no decision has been taken.
After considering the submissions of the petitioners and learned counsel for
the respondents, I am of view that in case of transfer a Government servant is
liable to vacate the official accommodation which he was occupying before
the date of transfer. In special circumstances, he can retain the said
accommodation if a permission to that effect is granted by the higher
authority. If no permission has been granted, he will be always be treated as
unauthorised occupant after the order of transfer. Rule of 1987 provides that if
a residential accommodation has been allotted to a member of Board, he shall
reside therein subject to terms and conditions specified by the Security
Commissioner. Further Clause 120.3 also states that if enrolled member of the
force fails to vacate the premises, then the possession can be taken after
following the procedure after giving notice and opportunity. Admittedly, up
till date no permission has been granted to the petitioners for retention of such
official accommodation though 1 ½ years have passed. Therefore, in my
opinion this Court cannot pass a positive order legalising the possession of the
petitioners to retain the said accommodation in spite of the order of transfer.
As the claim of the petitioners is pending before respondent no.4, therefore, it
will be appropriate that the claim of the petitioners may be considered
according to law within a period of two months from the date of production of
certified copy of the order.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.8.2010
V.Sri/-