Allowed

Nagarmal Kumawat v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Nov 2018WP(C)/5354/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of this writ petition challenging office orders directing the petitioner to vacate his family quarter and pay market rate rent. The Court held that new CRPF guidelines superseded the impugned orders, vacating the originals and making the earlier interim stay absolute.

What did the court decide?

Impugned office orders vacated; interim stay order made absolute.

Nagarmal Kumawat Vs the Union of India and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010120582015

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 5354/2015

¶5

1:NAGARMAL KUMAWAT

¶6

IRLA NO.4876, SECOND IN COMMAND, 128 BATTALION, CRPF, PRESENTLY LOCATED AT GUWAHATI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-3

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-3

¶10

3:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL DELHI RANGE CRPF R.K.PURAM NEW DELHI-66

¶11

4:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL GROUP CENTER CRPF AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM 78102

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R DUTTA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C.

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 01-11-2018

¶18

Heard Mr. H. Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Govt. Counsel, for the respondents.

¶19

In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the office order dated 24.03.2015 issued by the Estate Officer-cum-DIGP, CRPF, New Delhi as well as the office order dated 21.08.2015 issued by the Estate Officer-cum-DIGP, CRPF, New Delhi.

¶20

Petitioner is an officer serving in the CRPF. It is submitted that presently he is serving as Commandant at Jammu.

¶21

Matter relates to retaining of family quarter at Dwarka, New Delhi for residence of the family members while petitioner is posted in the North-East and in Jammu and Kashmir. By impugned office orders, petitioner was asked to vacate the family quarter and also directed to pay rent at market rate for the period of using the said quarter.

¶22

This Court by order dated 09.09.2015 had stayed the two office orders and thereafter had issued notice on 28.09.2015.

¶23

Today when the matter is called upon, Mr. Medhi has fairly placed before the Court the modified guidelines of the CRPF for allotment and occupation of family quarters at Dwarka, New Delhi dated 14.09.2016. As per the modified guidelines, every CRPF personnel and officer may be permitted by the Estate Officer to retain his family accommodation at Dwarka till his actual posting in Jammu and Kashmir, North-East and Left Wing Extremism affected areas/districts (except State capitals) on payment of flat rate/normal licence fee.

¶24

Mr. Medhi submits that in view of the modified guidelines, the two impugned office orders would no longer be effective in so far petitioner is concerned and would stand superseded by the modified guidelines.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

That being the position, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms by making the interim order passed on 09.09.2015 absolute.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Nagarmal Kumawat v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarmal Kumawat v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darcl Logistics Ltd. Vs Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited and 3 Ors.

Ghanashyam Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Tikendrajit Sarmah and Anr. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Soburuddin Ahmed and 11 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Kamakhya Karmokar and 16 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S. Sun Security Service Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.