Partly allowed

Virpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2009CWP/11466/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged non-refund of penal rent deducted from CISF officer's salary despite order exempting recovery. Court held enhanced rate not applicable as quarter vacated within six months of transfer.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to refund excess amount deducted if penal rent charged at enhanced rate from June 1, 2005 to October 7, 2005; to be refunded within two months.

Virpal Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P NO. 11466 OF 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P NO. 11466 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 20.04.2009

Virpal Singh

...Petitioner

versus

Union of India and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

Present : Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for UOI.

¶13

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to command the respondents to release the amount of penal rent deducted from his salary for the period he retained the government quarter allotted to him at Delhi, allegedly in an unauthorized manner.

¶15

The petitioner is serving as an Assistant Commandant

¶16

in CISF. While posted at Delhi, he was allotted quarter No. 97C Type III, DESU Colony, Sarai Kale Khan New Delhi. In July, 2002, the petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Uri (J & K) which has been declared as a 'hard or disturbed area' for posting purposes. While posted in such area, the petitioner was entitled to retain the quarter in Delhi and for that reason, no penal rent was

¶17

C.W.P NO. 11466 OF 2007

¶18

-2-

¶19

leviable. The respondents still imposed the penal rent and deducted from the petitioner's salary. The petitioner represented against the same and was given personal hearing by the Director General, CISF on 27.03.2006. Thereafter, the Competent Authority passed the order dated 04.04.2006 (Annexure P-1) sent through wireless message whereby it was directed that the penal rent be not recovered from the petitioner.

¶20

It is, however, not in dispute that the petitioner was against transferred from Uri to Chandigarh on 21.05.2005. He finally vacated the quarter in Delhi on 07.10.2005.

¶21

Notwithstanding, the above mentioned order passed by the Director General, CISF, the petitioner has not been refunded the amount of penal rent recovered from his salary, which has led to the filing of this petition.

¶22

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. The petitioner has also filed his rejoinder.

¶23

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings perused.

¶24

It appears from the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that firstly the petitioner was liable to pay the penal rent @ Rs.2535/- per month and thereafter for the period from 21.05.2005 to 07.10.2005 @ Rs.6915/- per month. According to the respondents, what has been exempted is the payment of penal rent for the period prior to 21.05.2005 and not thereafter.

¶25

C.W.P NO. 11466 OF 2007

¶26

-3-

¶27

The only question to be determined is as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay the penal rent for the period he remained in occupation of the quarter even after his transfer from Uri to Chandigarh at the enhanced rate of Rs.6915/- per month or he is liable to pay the said penal rent at the initial rate of Rs.2535/-?

¶28

It goes without saying that no penal rent was recoverable from the petitioner during the period he remained posted at Uri. It is an admitted fact that no residential quarter was allotted to him at Uri for the reason that he was in occupation of the said quarter in Delhi. However, there can be no justification for not vacating the quarter after the petitioner had been transferred to Chandigarh on 21.05.2005. Retention of the quarter by the petitioner, even after his posting at Chandigarh, would entail liability to pay the penal rent. In other words, the petitioner became liable to pay penal rent only after his transfer to Chandigarh on 21.05.2005. Therefore, the respondents would be entitled to charge the penal rent from the petitioner firstly at the initial rate of Rs.2535/-. As the petitioner had vacated the quarter within a period of less than six months i.e on 07.10.2005, no occasion could arise for the respondents to enhance the rate of penal rent.

¶29

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part and it is directed that after deducting the penal rent from 01.06.2005 till the quarter was vacated by the petitioner on 07.10.2005 at

¶30

C.W.P NO. 11466 OF 2007

¶31

-4-

¶32

the initial rate of Rs.2535/- per month, the respondents shall refund the excess amount, if any, deducted from his salary.

¶33

The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶34

Disposed of.

¶35

Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of

¶36

usual charges.

¶37

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶38

APRIL 20, 2009 shalini

Virpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siri Kishan Vs Bharta and Others

Parampal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Anand Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Garg Impex Ltd. Vs Pb. Financial Corp

Sham Sunder Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kundan Lal Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.