Naubar Chand vs The Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner has filed the instant petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing order dated 18.6.2010 in particular clause (ii), (iii) and (iv) is sought, as penal rent has been levied upon him and is sought to be recovered from him on account of retaining a Government accommodation beyond his term of allotment. For the purposes of reference, relevant clauses of the impugned order are extracted herebelow:-

(ii) From 1.2.2007 to 30.4.2007 twenty times the normal licence fee (3 months)

(iii) From 1.5.2007 to 31.5.2007 thirty times the normal licence fee (1 month)

(iv) From 1.6.2007 to 31.71.2009 penal rent.

Petitioner who is employee of the respondents was granted a Government accommodation as per his entitlement. The petitioner was posted at the Central Works; Sub Division No. 2 Mohali where he still continues to function. In the year 2007 the petitioner was designated as Sub Divisional Clerk on the basis of seniority and was posted in Central Sub Division No. 2, PWD (B&R), Mohali. Thereafter, he received a communication that he has been transferred from Chandigarh to Patiala on 1.8.2006. His allotment of residential house was cancelled and he was directed to vacate the premises within one week. The petitioner filed a CWP No. 10194 of 2010 challenging the cancellation of his house allotment which was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner to enable him to file a detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondents for consideration of his claim.

The representation of the petitioner has now been decided by virtue of the impugned order and penal rent has been imposed upon him as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.

The grievance of the petitioner is limited as according to him his services were never transferred from Mohali to Patiala as has been sought to be projected by the respondents and rather it was only the Sub Division No. 2 where he is employed and working which is attached to District Mohali and merely because an administrative arrangement has been made it would not disentitle the petitioner from the benefit of occupying a Government accommodation validly granted to him on the basis of his eligibility.

The stand of the petitioner has been contested with reference to the rules in particular Rule 2(h) and 2(i) which defined eligible employee and eligible office. The same are extracted herebelow:-

2.(h) "Eligible Employee" means an employee of the eligible office of the Government of Punjab, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh Administration or of Punjab and Haryana High Court working on regular basis in an eligible office or on foreign service having posting with substantive charge at Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali as long as he retains lien on a post in an eligible office, Mayor of the Municipal Corporation as also the employees of the Chandigarh Administration transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Chairman/President/ Member of various Commissions/Boards/Consumer Forums etc. set up by the States of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Administration, who are employed on full time basis and are getting their salary from the consolidated Fund, and if employed on contractual basis their contractual period is not less than three years

(i) "Eligible Office" means an office of the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh Administration and Punjab and Haryana High Court located at Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, the staff of which has been declared by the Chandigarh Administration to be eligible for accommodation under these rules. Office of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in respect of the employees of the Chandigarh Administration transferred to Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Chairman/President/Member of various Commissions/Boards/Consumer Forums etc. set up by the States of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Administration, who are employed on full time basis and are getting their salary from the consolidated Fund, and if employed on contractual basis their contractual period is not less than three years" and Chief Ministers/Ministers/Deputy Ministers/Leaders of opposition of Punjab and Haryana Government for houses in the Chief Ministers pool only.

Provided that the employees of those departments of the Union Territory Administration, who have their own departmental pool, shall not entitled for the allotment of houses from Chandigarh Administration Pool.

Provided that officers/officials holding additional charge of a post at Chandigarh and having substantive charge outside Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula will not fall within the expression "Eligible Office".

From the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the office of the petitioner being located outside Chandigarh, Panchkula and Mohali would certainly invite the disqualification in terms of the aforesaid rules and the petitioner who has been fastened with liability to pay penal rent on account of the retention of the Government house was justified.

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the factum of the petitioner''s Sub Division No. 2 having continued in Chandigarh, the petitioner was obligated to work in Mohali and merely because an administrative arrangement has been made by the Department attached to Sub Division No. 2 with Patiala District would not amount to the shifting of office of the petitioner so as to bring him within the purview of eligible office being outside the place of posting and consequently dis-entitle him to Government accommodation.

The argument is clearly mis-conceived. It could have been understood if the petitioner has been posted outside Sub Division No. 2 in an office which was located outside Panchkula, Mohali and Chandigarh but Sub Division No. 2 where he is working and which requires his physical presence is in Mohali and merely because an administrative arrangement is made aligning the office outside District and from where petitioner draws his pay would be of no consequence keeping in view the fact that benefit of Government accommodation is offered to an employee in terms of his eligibility and entitlement which are to be construed in terms of the aforesaid rules in particular 2(h) and 2(i) describing the eligible person and the eligible office. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed with no legal sanctity and it being totally unjustified, the same is hereby quashed.