Khushal Kaur vs Chairman Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Others

Inderjit Singh, J.—Petitioner has filed this revision petition against respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar and judgment dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It is mainly stated in the petition that petitioner is working as Senior Assistant with the respondent Board. In the year 1983, quarter No. 7B was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.07.1983 and petitioner resided there till March 2002. The petitioner constructed her own house after raising loan from LIC Housing Ltd. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application dated 18.03.2002 to respondent No. 4 seeking permission to surrender possession of the allotted house and to shift in her own house. Petitioner was allowed to vacate quarter No. 7B and possession was handed over to the respondent department on 14.04.2002. Thereafter, the department allotted the said house to Sh. Ashok Kumar. After surrendering the government accommodation, the respondents continued to give house rent allowance to the petitioner. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner never applied for government accommodation as the petitioner had already shifted to house constructed by her. Respondent No. 4 of its own issued allotment order dated 01.10.2009 allotting quarter to the petitioner and threatened that no house rent allowance would be given to the petitioner. The petitioner filed civil suit praying for decree of declaration to the effect that allotment letter dated 01.10.2009 allotting quarter to the petitioner was illegal, null and void and further for restraining defendants from deducting any house rent from the salary. Learned Civil Judge granted interim injunction to the petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2009. However, learned appellate Court reversed the order dated 01.12.2009 vide order dated 20.12.2011.

It is also stated in the petition that petitioner challenged the order dated 20.12.2011 before this Court vide civil revision. During the pendency of the civil revision, the civil suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2013 and the civil revision was rendered infructuous. The petitioner filed appeal before the Court of District Judge, Amritsar. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent department issued letter cancelling the order of allotment and accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner was surprised to receive order dated 12.05.2014 issued by respondent No. 4 conveying the cancellation order dated 23.04.2014 and the department is entitled to recovery of house rent allowance from the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.2009 i.e. the date of allotment to 23.04.2014 i.e. date of cancellation. Respondent department started making recovery from the pay of the petitioner and the total amount to be recovered is fixed as Rs. 2,82,970/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued as per the averments given in the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is discretionary relief. Learned Civil Judge vide order dated 09.04.2014 has dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The petitioner Khushal Kaur filed the appeal before learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar and vide judgment dated 30.05.2014, the appeal was dismissed, which means that both the Courts below did not find prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. It is also held that petitioner will not suffer any irreparable loss.

The Courts below while dismissing the application held that indisputably plaintiff, who is permanent employee, was allotted government accommodation vide letter dated 01.10.2009. She did not occupy the same. Rather, she filed civil suit, which has already been dismissed. The appeal filed by the present petitioner was also got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.04.2014. If the department has cancelled the allotment of the Govt. house on 23.04.2014, it was no ground to withdraw the appeal. The right of the plaintiff that she is entitled to receive house rent and cannot be compelled to live in the allotted house, has nowhere been determined by the Civil Court in favour of the plaintiff/present petitioner. Rather, the suit has been dismissed earlier and the appeal was got withdrawn, which means that the order has become final in favour of the defendants.

Now the question that house was not in a good shape or was not inhabitable, cannot be looked into at this stage without any evidence. The house was allotted on 01.10.2009 and it was not occupied by the present petitioner for about five years and even if it is taken that allotment was cancelled on the ground that the house became inhabitable, is also no ground to prove that house was inhabitable at the time of allotment also in the year 2009. Learned Court below has correctly held that if plaintiff is residing in her own accommodation that is out of her own will and when the government quarter is lying vacant and is being allotted to her, then deduction of house rent allowance from employee''s salary cannot be termed as wrong and illegal. It is also held by the Court that it appears unreasonable that employee is withdrawing house rent allowance in spite of the fact that government accommodation is lying vacant and causing loss to public exchequer.

From the perusal of the record, I find that the order passed by both the Courts below are correct and as per law and the judicial discretion has been exercised as per law.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.04.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar and judgment dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar are correct and as per law and do not require any interference from this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.