Sukanta Kumar Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Shri M.K. Upadhyay along with Ms. Karishma Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K Sharma holding brief of Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that applicant was posted in New Delhi and has been transferred at Prayagraj. He joined at Prayagraj on 12.2.2024 and applications dated 2.2.2024 and 5.2.2024 were moved for retention of the quarter till promotion of the applicant, which is scheduled to be held within 6 months. It is further argued that two months’ time was allowed to retain the quarter but they have not allowed for retention of quarter after expiry of two months. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to Annexure A-5 (page 33) of the OA and argued that applicant can be permitted under the aforesaid Rule for retention of quarter for six months on double licence fees. It is also argued that he is ready to pay the double licence fees. It is next argued that since the medical condition of the applicant is not good and he will be transferred on promotion again in the month of August 2024, thus, for six months, he may be allowed to retain the quarter.

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that no such prayer has been made at the end of the applicant till date. Since no application for retention of quarter for six months has been moved, proposal for damage rent was passed. It is also argued that if applicant intends to retain the quarter for six months, he may apply for retention of quarter for the aforesaid period expressing his clear intention for payment of double licence fees.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the applicant states that he is ready to move fresh application stating all the facts, within a period of five days regarding payment of double licence fees for retention of quarter for six months as per provision. Thus also argued that application be disposed of at the admission stage itself directing the respondents to decide the representation in a time bound manner, which shall be moved by him within five days. Respondents be also directed not to force the applicant to vacate the quarter till the disposal of the representation. He also argued that since applicant is ready to pay double licence fee as per provision, effect and operation of impugned order be also stayed.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

Without going into the merits of the case, it will be appropriate that this original application be disposed off at this stage itself with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant which shall be filed by the applicant.

Accordingly, the applicant is permitted to move a fresh representation within a period of 05 days from the date of this Order. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order in light of provision contained in Annexure A-5 of the OA if applicable, within a period of 15 days from the date they receive the fresh representation of the applicant. Effect and operation of impugned order dated 02.04.2024 (Annexure A-1) shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the representation moved by the applicant. It is further clarified that if applicant is permitted to retain the quarter for six months, impugned order will come to an end. The order passed on the representation shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

In view of the above directions, the OA is disposed off. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.

(Justice Om Prakash –VII)

Member (J)

Manish