Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab & Others vs Sarkari Karamchari Welfare ... on 9 May, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA NO.67 OF 2010 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 9th MAY 2012
State of Punjab & others
.... Appellants
Versus
Sarkari Karamchari Welfare Association & others
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for respondents.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Defendants State of Haryana and others have filed this second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
Suit was filed by respondents/plaintiffs in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The plaintiffs claimed to be representing the government officials residing in allotted Government houses. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deducting 5% of basic salary of the plaintiffs towards maintenance charges of the Government houses occupied by the plaintiffs but the defendants were not maintaining the said houses. The houses were not maintained for one year prior to filing of the suit. It was also alleged that some other Government houses in the neighbourhood are in illegal and unauthorized occupation of certain persons to whom the same have not been allotted. The same are required to be got vacated from them by the defendants because those unauthorized occupants cause nuisance to the plaintiffs. Accordingly RSA NO.67 OF 2010 -2- plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction directing the defendants to maintain the houses occupied by the plaintiffs and also to get the other houses in unauthorized occupation of non allottees vacated. Plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deducting 5% from the basic salary of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also sought declaration that defendants have not maintained the houses occupied by the plaintiffs for more than one year preceding the filing of the suit and 5% of the basic salary of the plaintiffs already deducted be adjusted in their salary i.e. be paid to the plaintiffs.
Defendants, while admitting that plaintiffs are occupying Government houses allotted to them, broadly controverted the other averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that amount equal to 5% of basic salary of the plaintiffs was being deducted as licence fee and not towards maintenance charges. It was also pleaded that the houses were being maintained properly by the defendants according to funds received from the Government. It was also alleged that effort was being made to get houses under unauthorized occupation of certain persons vacated. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2008 decreed the suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 10.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed this second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
At the outset, it has to be noticed that both the courts below have dealt with the case in a very casual and perfunctory manner. After RSA NO.67 OF 2010 -3- noticing the evidence led by the parties and the contentions advanced by counsel for the parties, trial Court disposed of material issues No.1 to 3 by way of observations in paragraph 11 of its judgment which is reproduced hereunder:
"11. I have gone through the record statement of the parties and the documents produced by the parties and I am fully agreed for the evidence put forth by the counsel of the plaintiffs and the documentary evidence clearly shows that 5% deduction was done for the maintenance charges from the basic salary of the plaintiffs and as such these issues No.1, 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant."
Similarly lower appellate Court disposed of the first appeal by observations made in paragraph 13 of its judgment, which is also reproduced hereunder:
"13. After considering the rival contentions of ld.G.P. for the appellants and ld. Counsel or the respondents, the documentary evidence produced by the respondents/plaintiffs clearly shows that 5% from the basic salary of the employees has been deducted for maintaining the Government Quarters. As per report of Local Commissioner, the condition of the quarters is not fit and the department is not maintaining the same. The suit has been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. As such, the contention of the G.P. for the appellants that the society is not registered is not tenable. Similarly the contention of G.P. for the appellants that the notice under Section 80 has not been served, does not hold water because alongwith the suit the application under Section 80(2) CPC was filed in the trial Court which was allowed by the RSA NO.67 OF 2010 -4- trial Court and the service of notice was dispensed with. As such, the trial Court has rightly decided all the issues."
Thus both the courts below decided the suit and the first appeal without any discussion or reasons. It appears that the Courts below did not even notice as to what relief had been claimed by the plaintiffs and what relief was being granted or could be granted to the plaintiffs. The entire approach of the Courts below is patently perverse and illegal.
Plaintiffs have alleged that 5% of their basic salary was being deducted towards maintenance charges of the official houses allotted to them. If it were so, it would mean that the plaintiffs were occupying the houses as rent free accommodation. However, plaintiffs are not entitled to rent free accommodation. Stand of the defendants that 5% of basic salary of the plaintiffs was being deducted towards licence fee of the Government houses occupied by the plaintiffs is perfectly correct. Said amount is being deducted as licence fee and not as maintenance charges of the houses in question.
However, it is duty of the defendants to properly maintain the official houses allotted to the plaintiffs being employees of the Government. Defendants have also admitted this fact by pleading that they are maintaining the houses as per rules and as per funds available. Consequently, plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction regarding proper maintenance of the houses in question. As regards houses under unauthorized occupation of certain persons, defendants have to take steps in accordance with law for getting the same vacated and defendants have themselves pleaded that they are doing so. However, no other relief as sought for by the plaintiffs can be granted to them. Other reliefs appear to RSA NO.67 OF 2010 -5- have been impliedly granted by the Courts below without noticing the implication thereof. Decrees passed by the Courts below would mean that defendants have to maintain the houses and also amount equal to 5% of basic salary cannot be deducted from the salary of the plaintiffs because permanent injunction in this regard sought for by the plaintiffs is also deemed to have been granted by the decrees of the Courts below. The amount already deducted for more than one year before the filing of the suit is also required to be reimbursed to the plaintiffs as per implications of the decrees passed by the Courts below but this is also impermissible.
It is thus manifest that judgments and decrees of the Courts below in this regard are completely perverse and illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Substantial question of law to this effect arises for determination in this second appeal and the same is answered accordingly.
As a necessary consequence of the discussion aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed partly. Judgments and decrees of the Courts below are modified. Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed only to the extent of directing the defendants to maintain the houses in question as per rules and funds available and also directing the defendants to get vacated in accordance with law the Government houses under unauthorized occupation of certain persons. The suit regarding remaining reliefs stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs throughout.
9th May, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE