Allowed

Saroj v. Chief Administrator and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jan 2023CWP/2641/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued an oral order quashing an order imposing penal rent on an employee who could not vacate a government flat due to force majeure and lack of prior notice regarding termination conditions. The petitioner was directed to receive a refund of the deposited a

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.06.2020 imposed is quashed and the deposit made by the petitioner shall be refunded to her after compliance of necessary formalities.

Saroj Vs Chief Administrator and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

�

¶2

217

¶3

CWP-2641-2021 (O&M)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.2641 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.01.2023

SAROJ

......Petitioner

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AND ANR

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. Kamal Deep Sehra, Advocate and Ms. Meena, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the respondents. ****

¶14

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Executing Engineer, Housing Board, Haryana thereby imposing extra rent/penal rent to the tune of 0.5% per month of the market value of the flat.

¶16

A government accommodation was allotted to the petitioner on 10.09.2019. As per terms and conditions, if the house in question was required for allotment to the employees

¶17

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.10 18.56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

CWP-2641-2021 (O&M) �

¶19

of Housing Board, Haryana, then the house can be got vacated by giving 30 days notice. The house was never sought to be vacated on the grounds as mentioned in the allotment letter, rather the respondent No.2 vide notice dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-2) sought to get the house in question to be vacated on the ground that the house was required by the Housing Board for disposing of the same due to precarious financial condition of the Board as there was huge liability which was to be discharged by selling of the flats in question.

¶20

The aforesaid condition was not part of any terms and conditions on which the flat in question was allotted to the petitioner on 10.09.2019. The petitioner was asked to vacate the flat by 31.08.2020 and in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner, a penal rent was to be charged @ 0.5% per month on the current market value of the flat. The calculations have been made in respect of Type-IV flat showing the amount of Rs.21,000/- to be the extra rent on account of the aforesaid 0.5% per month.

¶21

The petitioner has already vacated the flat on 31.12.2020 and for four months, the respondent-Board has calculated penal rent to the tune of Rs.84,000/-.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of notice dated 18.06.2020, the petitioner has already represented before the Secretariat of the Hon'ble Chief Minister

¶23

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.10 18.56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶24

CWP-2641-2021 (O&M) �

¶25

of Haryana. The Hon'ble Speaker of Haryana Vidhan Sabha vide dispatch No.HS/N/20/1361 dated 16.07.2020 recommended that all the employees, who were residing in the houses of Housing Board be considered sympathetically to retain these houses upto April 2021. The petitioner was suffering from COVID-19 at the relevant time and her isolation period was from 02.09.2020 to 12.09.2020.

¶26

The reply filed by the respondents is conspicuously silent as regards the receipt of representation of the petitioner within 30 days of issuance of show cause notice. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was sufficiently prevented from vacating the house for a period of 4 months firstly on account of condition No.6 which was never in existence as the house was not sought to be vacated for allotting the same to the employee of the Housing Board. Secondly, the proposed selling of the flat was not in the terms and conditions of the allotment. The show cause notice was issued on 18.06.2020 and the petitioner was required to vacate the house by 31.08.2020. The petitioner made a representation to the Government and the Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha vide Dispatch dated 16.07.2020 had issued necessary recommendations not to force the employees and allow them to retain the houses till April 2021. Moreover, due to force majure event , even during currency of COVID-19, the

¶27

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.10 18.56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶28

�

¶29

CWP-2641-2021 (O&M)

¶30

petitioner was sufficiently prevented from vacating the house. The issue is of four months. The house in question has already been vacated by the petitioner.

¶31

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 18.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.2. The amount so deposited by the petitioner be refunded to her after due compliance of necessary formalities.

¶32

Petition stands allowed.

¶33

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) January 09 , 2023 JUDGE Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶34

MOHMED ATIK 2023.01.10 18.56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Saroj v. Chief Administrator and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj v. Chief Administrator and Anr.

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

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the State Transport Commissioner Punjab and Another

Ravi Vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission

Sunil Vs State of Haryana and Another

Talvir Singh Vs the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and Anr.

Som Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Santosh Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.