Petitioner challenged orders imposing penal licence fee for retaining government accommodation post-retirement. Court held he was entitled to such accommodation and allowed the petition following a precedent.
Instant petition allowed in same terms as CWP No.9013 of 2011.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.7694 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7694 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 15-05-2011
Gurdev Singh
....Petitioner
VERSUS
UT Administration through Home Secretary, Chandigarh and others
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj , Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for UT, Chandigarh Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab
MAHESH GROVER, J
The petitioner has filed the instant petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing orders dated 3.9.2009 and 23.2.2010 passed by respondent no.3 vide which he has been penalized by imposing penal licence fee on account of his retaining a Government accommodation beyond his term of allotment as well as order dated 3.11.2009 vide which prayer of the petitioner for rectification in charging of penal licence fee has been declined.
Petitioner who is an 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, PWD (B&R )Mohali from where he has retired on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement on completion of 4 months i.e the permissible period for which a retired employee can retain the Government accommodation, petitioner
CWP No.7694 of 2010 (O&M) 2
approached the respondents for grant of no dues certificate. Electricity and Water Supply Departments issued the no dues certificates to him. Thereafter, he was asked to produce no dues certificate from Assistant Controller Rents and he applied for the same. But he was informed by Assistant Controller Rents vide letter dated 3.9.2009 that a sum of Rs.1,36,379/- is outstanding against him on account of penal rent for retaining Government accommodation for the period from 30.4.2006 to 31.8.2009 i.e the period for which he remained posted in Central Works Sub Division No.2 PWD (B&R) Mohali and was drawing his salary from Patiala since August 2006.
Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to respondent no.2 for rectification in penal licence fee but the same was declined on the ground that he was drawing his salary from outside Chandigarh/Panchkula/ Mohali and as such he cannot be treated to be an eligible employee to retain the Government accommodation.
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.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the controversy in the instant petition is squarely covered by decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.9013 of 2011 titled as ' Naubar
CWP No.7694 of 2010 (O&M) 3
Chand Vs. UT, Chandigarh and others' decided on 14.5.2012.
Consequently, instant petition is allowed in the same terms as in order passed in CWP No.9013 of 2011 titled as ' Naubar Chand Vs. UT, Chandigarh and others' decided on 14.5.2012.
May 15, 2012 rekha
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner entitled to quash orders penalizing him for retaining government accommodation after retirement.
Whether the petitioner's salary drawal from outside Chandigarh disentitled him from retaining government accommodation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Naubar Chand Vs. UT, Chandigarh and othersFollowed¶21
CWP No.9013 of 2011 titled as 'Naubar Chand Vs. UT, Chandigarh and others' decided on 14.5.2012
Gurdev Singh
UT Administration through Home Secretary, Chandigarh and others
MAHESH GROVER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
