High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 05 UK CK 0070

Prabodh Kumar Verma vs Superintendent Engineer & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 25 May 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 945 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 356 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2.

On the oral prayer made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, petitioner is permitted to implead Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Irrigation Department, Dehradun as respondent no. 3. Let amended memo of parties be supplied in the Registry within 24 hours.

3.

Petitioner retired as Superintending Engineer from Irrigation Department on 31.07.2020. He is aggrieved by an order passed by Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop, Roorkee on 07.09.2020. By the said order, petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 57,420/-, as penal rent for overstaying in the official accommodation for two months i.e. July & August, 2020.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, petitioner was transferred from Roorkee to Dehradun as Superintending Engineer in the month of September, 2019, however, petitioner was asked to hold the charge of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Workshop, Roorkee, therefore, petitioner held the said charge till 28.01.2020. He further submits that in the month of March, 2020, petitioner was given additional charge of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Workshop, Roorke, which was held by him till his retirement i.e. 31.07.2020, therefore, according to him, petitioner is not liable to pay any penal rent, in respect of the residential accommodation, which was allotted to him while posted at Roorkee.

5.

Mr. T.S. Pharityal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submits that instead of directly rushing to this Court, petitioner should have approached the Competent Authority, by making a representation.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to respondent no.3 within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated time, the same shall be decided by respondent no.

3, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with copy of this order.

7.

For a period of eight weeks or till decision taken by respondent no. 3 is communicated to the petitioner, whichever is earlier, impugned order dated 07.09.2020 shall be kept in abeyance.