Allowed

Gulzar Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Jan 2012CWP/21126/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged his exclusion from the retired persons category for a flat allotment due to a clerical error in his application. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the Housing Board to correct the mistake and consider him eligible.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition and directed the Chandigarh House Board to consider the petitioner as an eligible candidate in the retired persons category.

Gulzar Singh Vs Chandigarh Housing Board — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.21126 of 2010 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.21126 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 12.01.2012

Gulzar Singh

....Petitioner

Vs.

Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh.

¶8

....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel, for Chandigarh Housing Board-respondent.

¶12

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner claims a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner in the category of Retired Persons and to allot him a 'C' Category flat.

¶15

In January, 2008, the respondent advertised for flats in Self Finance Housing Scheme on lease hold basis for 99 years for employees of Chandigarh Administration. A total of 3066 one room apartments were advertised. There was reservation of 5% to the employees retiring within three years and those who have retired in last three years. Thus, 153 flats were available for the retired person category.

¶16

The petitioner submitted his application and mentioned in column 14 of the application that he has retired from Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.21126 of 2010 (O&M) 2

¶18

Administration. Such application was also endorsed by his employer to the effect that he has retired on 31.03.2007. But, as per the petitioner, he wrongly tick marked 'no' in the column, which dealt with reservation as per para no.4 of the brochure. As per the petitioner, he should have tick marked 'yes'.

¶19

A list of eligible applicants was displayed on 21.10.2010 and soon thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.10.2010 to the effect that he should be considered in the category of retired persons. Such assertion of the petitioner was not accepted, though the name of other three applicants was included in list of the applicants of retired person category.

¶20

Mr. Kaushal states that the said three applicants had applied in the retired persons' category, but there were deficiency in the application forms, which were ordered to be rectified, which led to treating their applications in the category of retired persons.

¶21

We find that the petitioner has applied in the category of retired persons, which is apparent from column 14 of the application form and the endorsement from the Head of the Department. The mistake is only in the column 17, where he has tick marked 'no' for the reservation as per the brochure. Such mistake should have been corrected when the petitioner submitted representation on 25.10.2010. The respondents have allowed to make up deficiency in respect of other applicants. There is no reason, why the petitioner is not permitted to correct mistake.

¶22

In view of the said fact, we allow the present writ petition and direct the Chandigarh House Board to consider the petitioner as an eligible candidate in the category of retired persons and take

¶23

CWP No.21126 of 2010 (O&M) 3

¶24

consequent action thereafter.

¶25

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶26

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE January 12, 2012 ajp

Gulzar Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulzar Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh

Rohan Khanna Vs HUDA and Ors.

Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

R.K. Dyeing Industry Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Others

M/S Harpal Singh Pradeep Kumar Vs Hry. State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors.

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.