R.M. Patel Agriculture Officer vs Director of Campus Gujarat and Another

J.B. Pardiwala, J.—The Petitioner was appointed as Agriculture Officer by the Gujarat Agricultural University, Dantiwada Campus, Banaskantha in the year 1989. It appears that after his appointment as an Agriculture Officer, he requested the University for allotment of a quarter as per the rules prescribing the mode and manner of allotment. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the year 1995, an order was passed allotting a quarter to the Petitioner. However, even after the decision was taken to allot the quarter to the Petitioner, actual allotment was not effected. Therefore, the Petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 8008/2000. This petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 19th October 2000 by the learned Single Judge, which reads as under:

If we go by the averments made by the Petitioner in para-6 of the Special Civil Application which have not been controverter by the Respondents in reply affidavit, the defense given for non-allotment of quarter to the Petitioner at Deesa is wholly perverse and arbitrary.

As a result of which, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed and the Respondents are directed to allot the Petitioner as per his entitlement the quarter at Deesa within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

On the strength of this order dated 19th October 2000, it appears that thereafter the University actually allotted quarter in favour of the Petitioner and he started occupying the same.

In this petition, the prayer is that, since he was actually allotted the quarter from 1995, but he was not put in actual possession of the same, he had to stay in another rented premises from 1994 to 2000 i.e. till the time he was actually put into possession of the quarter.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that for six odd years he paid rent at the market rate. According to him, he is entitled to recover Rs. 1,85,000=00 from the University as he had to pay this amount towards rent at the market rate of some other premises.

Firstly, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the Petitioner had actually occupied any other premises on rent. There are no details as regards the place where he had stayed, ownership of the premises, what was the actual rent fixed, terms of the rent note, etc. Nothing is on record.

Besides, the stand taken by the Respondent - University is that those employees who were not allocated quarters were given House Rent Allowance. In the present case also, the Petitioner was being paid House Rent Allowance at the prescribed rate from January 1994 to November 2000. From November 2000, the House Rent Allowance was stopped as the Petitioner was allotted the quarter. The picture has been made abundantly clear by the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Chhotalal Girdharlal Bhalia, Administrative Officer of the University. Relevant paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 read as under:

I say that as per the norms of the Respondent university residential quarters are allocated to persons who are serving with a particular campus or center of the university subject to the proviso that their pay and allowances are paid by the particular campus or center where they are in service. I say that the Petitioner has not been allotted a quarter because quarters were not available with the university, more particularly quarters to which the Petitioner was entitled was not available. The Petitioner has approached the Hon. Court by way of Special C.A. No. 8008 of 2000 which was decided on 19.10.2000 and the Hon''ble Court has directed allocation of quarter as per his entitlement. The Petitioner was allocated the quarter thereafter.

I say that those employees of the university were not allocated quarters are given house rent allowance. I say that even in case of the Petitioner, he has been getting house rent allowance at the prescribed rate from January 1994 up to November 2000. I say that thereafter since the quarter has been allotted to the Petitioner, he is not entitled to any house rent allowance. I say that since the Petitioner was getting house rent allowance, there is no question of his recovery market rent from the university since he is not entitled to the same. I say that the Petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate and therefore the claim of the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed. I say that for want of allocation of living accommodation, the Petitioner was entitled to house rent allowance which has been paid to him and therefore he would not be entitled to market rent as claimed by him. In any case, the Respondent university dispute the monetary claim of the Petitioner because such a claim if at all tenable can only be adjudicated before the appropriate forum, in case of entitlement, which is not the case in the present petition.

In the aforesaid premises of the matter, no case has been made out by the Petitioner. There being no merit in this petition, the same is hereby rejected with no order as to cost. Rule is discharged.