Govind Jha Vs State Govt. of C.G.

1 - State Govt. Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Forest Department Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Ps- Rakhi, New Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Durg Division, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Van Mandal Adhikari Rajnandgaon Division,, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶10

4 - Divisional Forest Officer Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For : Mr. DR Minj. Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Siddharth Respondents/State Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

12.05.2026

¶15

1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of impugned order dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-P/2) issued by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit house rent for the period of 33 months i.e. Rs.8700/- per month (double the prescribed monthly market rate for an “H” category

¶16

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date: 2026.05.15 10:28:22 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

residence), total amount of Rs.2,87,100/- for illegal occupation of government accommodation.

¶19

2. Facts of the case, in brief are that, the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in the Forest Division Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon. During his posting there, he was allotted Government accommodation and thereafter upon his promotion, he was transferred from Rajnandgaon to Kawardha on 16.5.2018. However, he did not vacate the Government accommodation at Rajnandgaon, as his son has been suffering from mental retardation. Hence, recovery order dated 27.6.2019 was issued to the petitioner directing him to deposit the house rent double the market rate for unauthorized occupation of the said accommodation. The said recovery order was subsequently stayed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg vide Order dated 17.7.2019 (Annexure P/1). Subsequently, another recovery order date 23.03.2022 (Annexure-P/2) was issued to the petitioner directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.2,87,100/- on account of alleged unauthorized occupation of the government accommodation for a period of 33 months, i.e. from June 2019 to February 2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed instant petition.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s son has been suffering from mental retardation and since proper medical facility was not available for him at Kawardha, the petitioner continued to retain government accommodation (H-type quarter) allotted to him at Rajnandgaon. It is further submitted that the recovery order was stayed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P/1), which was subsequently recalled vide order dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P/6). However, despite the subsistence of the stay order in Annexure P/1 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest

¶21

3

¶22

Circle, Rajnandgaon, the impugned recovery order dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure P/2) came to be passed against the petitioner, which is illegal in the light of stay order (Annexure-P/1). Hence, it is prayed that impugned order dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-P/2) be quashed.

¶23

4. The respondents-State have filed their reply. Learned counsel for the State, referring to the reply, submits that the petitioner was allotted H-type government accordance at Rajnandgaon, while he was posted there as Forest Guard. However, even after his transfer on promotion from the post of Forest Guard at Rajnandgaon to the post of Forester at Kawardha vide order dated 16.5.2018, he did not vacate the said Government accommodation. It is submitted that as per Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Government Quarter Allotment Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules 2002’), after the transfer, the petitioner was entitled to retain the Government accommodation only for maximum period of six months, that too after getting permission from the competent authority. He further submits that though the recovery order was stayed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg vide Order dated 17.7.2019 (Annexure P/1), the said authority was also not competent under Rule 5 of the Rules, 2002 to extend the period of retention of the Government accommodation beyond six months. Learned counsel further submits that on account of stay order dated 17.7.2019 (Annexure-P/1), necessary guidance was sought from Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg on 29.12.2021. In response, vide Annexure R/2 dated 06.07.2022, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg directed the authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the rules. Thereafter various notices (Annexure-R/4) dated 07.12.2018, 01.01.2019, 28.01.2019, 03.5.2019 and lastly 21.5.2019 were issued to the petitioner directing him to vacate the government accommodation. Despite

¶24

4

¶25

the same, he did not vacate the accommodation. Consequently, recovery Order dated 04.02.2022 (Annexure-R/6) was passed against the petitioner directing him to pay rent for the period from June 2019 to February 2022 i.e. for 33 months at the rate of Rs.8700/- per month, amounting in total Rs. 2,87,100/-. Learned counsel further submits that despite repeated notices, the petitioner not only continued to occupy the government accommodation illegally, but he also drew house rent allowance for aforesaid period at the rate of Rs.2327/- per month. Hence, it is prayed that since the petitioner violated the applicable rules as well as the repeated notices issued to him, and also obtained house rent allowance during the said period, the present petition deserves to be rejected.

¶26

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner has received the house rent allowance for the said period of 33 months, he is ready to refund/deposit the same. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, the petitioner was allotted H-type government accommodation at Rajnandgaon, which he continued to occupy even after his transfer without authorization for a period of 33 months i.e. from June 2019 to February 2022. It is also not in dispute that vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P/1), the recovery proceedings were stayed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg. Subsequently, the said order was recalled vide Annexure R/2 dated 06.01.2022, whereby the aforesaid authority directed that appropriate steps be taken in accordance with the rules for recovery of house rent allowance on account of the petitioner’s unauthorized occupation. As such, in view of the aforesaid stay order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, recovery on account of

¶27

5

¶28

unauthorized occupation would not be permissible for the period from 17.07.2019 till 06.01.2022, when the said order was recalled vide Annexure R/2 and directions were issued to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the rules.

¶29

8. So far as the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Government Quarter Allotment Rules, 2002, relied upon by the respondents in their reply and argued by learned counsel for the State are concerned, learned counsel could not demonstrate the said Rules of 2002 from the record before this Court. Moreover, since the stay order had been passed by the superior authority, i.e., the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg, the responsibility cannot be shifted upon the petitioner by treating his occupation of the government accommodation during the said period as unauthorized or illegal. Therefore, as observed in the preceding paragraph, since the recovery order was stayed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P/1), and the said order was subsequently recalled vide Annexure R/2 dated 06.01.2022, whereby the Chief Conservator of Forest, Durg Circle, Durg directed respondent No.3 to take appropriate steps in accordance with the rules, the impugned order (Annexure P/2) directing recovery of house rent allowance from the petitioner for the period from June 2019 to February 2022 is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, deserves to be quashed.

¶30

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.03.2022 (Annexure-P/2) issued by respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. However, as contended by learned counsel for the State, and not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, although the petitioner continued to occupy the government accommodation at Rajnandgaon for a period of 33 months, he also received house rent allowance during the said period while posted at Kawardha. Since

¶31

6

¶32

the petitioner had already retained and occupied the government accommodation at Rajnandgaon, he was not entitled to receive house rent allowance simultaneously. Hence, the petitioner is directed to deposit the house rent allowance at the rate of Rs.2327/- per month, which he received for aforesaid period of 33 months, within 45 days from today. It is further observed that if any amount towards the same has already been deducted or recovered, the same shall be duly adjusted against the amount now directed to be refunded, by the petitioner.

¶33

10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶34

11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶37

Bini

Govind Jha v. State Govt. of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Jha v. State Govt. of C.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lukesh Kumbhakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sateeshan Vs Jugga Devi (Dead) through L.Rs. Lucky Sanklecha

Sahdev Biswas Vs Jugga Devi ( Dead) through Lrs. 1.1 Lucky Sanklecha

Uma Tiwari Vs Smt. Pooja Chouhan

Smt. Rajkumari Sahu Vs Sushil Sahu

M/S Central Automobiles Vs Saurabh Nathani