Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shyama Prasad And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 2 August, 2011
CWP No. 8584 of 1997 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 8584 of 1997
Date of Decision: 02.08.2011
Shyama Prasad and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,
Present : Mr. K.S.Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate,
Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel.
****
1. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
**** M.M.KUMAR, .J.
1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.1997 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner No.1 to permit him to take possession of quarter No. 188-A, Type-II, Sector 30-A, P& T Colony, Chandigarh.
2. The quarter was, infact, allotted to petitioner No.2, namely, Devi Parshad, who had retired from the service and thereafter his son, namely, Shyama Prasad who was also appointed as a regular Mazdor in the respondent-department w.e.f. 09.08.1995 applied for allotment of the said accommodation on the ground that being son of the retired employee he was entitled to preferential/out of turn allotment. He continued to occupy in this quarter. The Tribunal CWP No. 8584 of 1997 [2] observed that the cancellation of allotment made by the respondents could not be regarded as illegal as no explanation, rule or law was cited. Accordingly, the claim made by petitioner No.1 was rejected.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, a Division Bench had stayed dispossession of the petitioners by passing an interim order on 12.06.1997 till further orders. The aforesaid order of dispossession is continued.
4. Mr. Sidhu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has stated that petitioner No.1 Shyama Prasad has been subjected to payment of penal rent which was increased to 50 times. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner has been paying rent @ ` 2500/- per month which is exorbitant for a low paid employee. It is also pertinent to notice that during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 acquired some right to be allotted a quarter according to his own entitlement.
5. In the additional affidavit filed by Shri Gurmukh Singh, AGMWWP-II-cum-Estate Officer, it was not disputed that persons junior to petitioner No.1 have been allotted houses in Chandigarh. In paragraph No. 6 of the additional affidavit it has not been accepted that 9 persons junior to petitioner No.1 were allotted quarters in Sector 66, Mohali, three other persons junior to petitioner No.1 were allotted quarters in Sector 43, Chandigarh and likewise another set of three other juniors were allotted quarters in Sector 44, Chandigarh. It has been clarified that Shri Avniash Kumar Singh who was allotted quarter No. 397, Sector 66, Mohali on 25.03.2005 was later on allotted quarter No. 181, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. As all the CWP No. 8584 of 1997 [3] aforesaid persons are junior to petitioner No.1, we passed an order dated 11.07.2011 wherein Mr. Rathee, learned Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent had stated that the case of petitioner No.1 for allotment of a suitable accommodation in any Sector of Chandigarh was to be considered within a period of two weeks. Accordingly, H.No. 677-B (II) Sector 44-A, Chandigarh has now been allotted to petitioner No.1 on 23.07.2011. A copy of this allotment letter is taken on record.
6. Petitioner No.1 undertakes that he will shift to the new quarter on or before 07.8.2011.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not wish to go into the merit of the controversy as the petitioner has now been allotted quarter in Sector 44-A, Chandigarh. However, we clarify that whatever rent the petitioner has paid no further rent either as arrears or on any other account be charged from him as he has been paying penal rent to the extent of 50 times. No recovery from petitioner No.1 be effected on account of occupying Quarter No. 188- A, Sector 30-A, Telephone Colony, Chandigarh. However, petitioner No.1 shall be liable to pay the normal rent with regard to the new accommodation allotted to him as per rules.
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) 02.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'