1 2026:CGHC:26910 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8252 of 2022  Laxman Das Manikpuri S/o Late Shri M.D. Manikpuri Aged About 63 Years R/o - Kabir Sadan, River View Colony, Koni, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Skill Development, Skill Education And Employment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate Of Skill Development Skill Education, Fourth Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director, Regional Officer Industrial Training Institute, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Principal, Government ITI College Koni, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Principal, Government ITI College Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shrijan Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03.04.2021 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.06 15:08:41 +0530 2 Principal, ITI-Masturi (Pachpedi), District- Bilaspur. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to release gratuity amount with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade – III under the respondent No. 4 on 18.03.1985. His services were regularized on 15.12.1987, and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade – II vide order dated 24.09.1992 and to the post of Assistant Grade – I on 26.09.2012. The petitioner was allotted Government accommodation barrack No. T-34/2 at ITI Koni vide order dated 26.11.1996. His services were transferred to ITI Masturi vide order dated 30.07.2012, but he failed to vacate the Government accommodation, and therefore, a notice dated 19.09.2018 was issued to the petitioner to vacate the Government accommodation. The petitioner vacated the premises on 29.09.2018. The petitioner got retired from services on account of superannuation on 29.02.2020, and after retirement respondent No. 5 issued an order of recovery of penal rent to the tune of Rs. 3,83,400/- on 03.04.2021from gratuity amount payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged said order on various grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allocated Government accommodation on 26.11.1996. Services of the petitioner were transferred from ITI Koni to ITI Masturi vide order dated 3 30.07.2012. He would submit that as services of the petitioner were transferred within the District, therefore, he did not vacate the Government accommodation. He would contend that immediately after receipt of notice, he vacated the premises on 29.09.2018. He would submit that after said date no action was taken, but after retirement an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 3,83,400/- has been issued by the respondent No. 5 on 03.04.2021. It is argued that the petitioner got retired from services on 29.02.2020, whereas, the order of recovery was issued on 03.04.2021 after expiry of one year, and therefore, said order is bad in law according to the proviso appended to Rule 66 (4) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. He would pray to quash this order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer would submit that the petitioner retain the Government accommodation after retirement, and therefore, show-cause notice was issued and after retirement decision has been taken to adjust the penal rent from amount of gratuity. He would submit that according to Rule 17(1), 17(6), 28 and 29 of House Allotment Rules, 2000(for short “Rules, 2000”), the order of recovery has been passed. He would further submit that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to vacate Government accommodation, but he vacated it on 29.09.2018, whereas, his services were transferred on 30.07.2012, thus, he retained Government accommodation for more than six years. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 4 6. It is admitted fact that the petitioner was allocated Government accommodation No. T-34/2 vide order dated 26.11.1996. The services of the petitioner were transferred to ITI Masturi vide order dated 30.07.2012. The petitioner should have vacated the Government accommodation immediately after transfer, but he retained said accommodation till 29.09.2018, after receipt of notice dated 19.09.2018 he vacated the accommodation. 7. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as services of the petitioner were transferred within the District, therefore, he did not vacate the Government accommodation. In absence of any such provision, the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. Proviso appended to Rule 66(4) of Rules, 1976 states that in respect of house rent and water charges, the amount, if any, the claim for which is received after the period of 12 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant shall not be recoverable from such retired Government servant. This provision specifically states that if no attempt was made by the State Government to recover water charges or house rent within a period of 12 months from date of retirement, it cannot be recovered from a retired Government servant after expiry of 12 months. In the present case, the petitioner retired on 29.02.2020, whereas, the order of recovery was issued on 03.04.2021 after expiry of 12 months. 9. According to Rule 17(1) & 17(6), Rule 28 & 29 of Rules, 2000, a Government servant has to vacate the allotted accommodation within 10 days of the first notice. According to Rule 17 (a) of the Rules, 2000 if a Government servant fails to vacate the Government accommodation within six months from the date of transfer, penal rent may be recovered from such 5 Government servant and judicial proceedings may also be initiated against him. In the present case, no action was taken by the respondents pursuant to Rule 17(a) of the Rules, 2000 and order impugned was issued on 03.04.2021 after retirement. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not vacate the Government accommodation after the order of transfer, but during service tenure no action was taken against the petitioner by the department. The order Annexure P/1 was passed by the respondent No. 5 on 03.04.2021 after retirement of the petitioner. 11. It is also not in dispute that within period of one year from date of retirement no action was taken and the order was passed after expiry of the period provided in proviso to Rule 66 (4) of the Rules, 1976. As it is clearly stated in proviso to Rule 66 (4) of the Rules, 1976 that after retirement, house rent and water charges shall not be recovered after expiry of 12 months, therefore, in my opinion the order passed by respondent No. 5 Annexure P/1 dated 03.04.2021 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly, quashed. 12. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. If such an amount has already been recovered or adjusted shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of recovery till its realization. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant