Dismissed¶62

Jagdish Kumar v. Director, Pec( Deemed University), Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Apr 2026CWP/2049/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retention of government accommodation during deputation; U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool house; House No.548 Sector 11 Chandigarh; Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University) Estate Officer; Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules 1996; six-month retention limit; penal licence fee 50x/100x/200x normal licence fee; notifications dated 24.05.1993 (MHRD) and 16.06.2017 (Directorate of Estates); Rule 40; writ petition dismissed by Kuldeep Tiwari, J.; CWP-2049-2025 (O&M).

What did the court decide?

The Rules/Notifications invoked by learned counsel for the petitioner (including the notifications dated 24.05.1993 and 16.06.2017) bear no applicability to the conditions governing the allotment of the house in question. ¶51

Jagdish Kumar Vs Director, Pec( Deemed University), Chandigarh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, serving on deputation outside Chandigarh, is entitled to retain his government house allotted from the U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool for up to 60 months under the notifications dated 24.05.1993 and 16.06.2017 read with Rule 40, instead of the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶51

Ratio / Principle

Despite allotment by P.E.C., the house belongs to the U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool and was made available to P.E.C. for allotment to its employees; rent is chargeable as per instructions issued by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time, and the Allotment Rules assume paramount relevance, mandating that allotment of all government residences belonging to Chandigarh Administration be strictly governed thereby.

¶51

Key takeaways

The Allotment Rules do not envisage retention of the house beyond six months after posting outside the U.T. Chandigarh territory; the six-month extension (06.03.2024 to 05.09.2024) had already been sanctioned; there being no provision under the Allotment Rules for any further extension, the competent authority rightly declined the petitioner's request and proceeded to levy penal rent for the period of unauthorized occupation.ratio¶55
Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate why the Allotment Rules, under which the house in question was allotted, should not apply while the notifications relied upon by him should govern instead.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J., oral) — CWP-2049-2025 (O&M), decided 27.04.2026. Dr. Jagdish Kumar, allotted House No.548, Sector 11, Chandigarh (letter dated 25.11.2003) from the U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool through P.E.C.'s House Allotment Committee, challenged the orders dated 12.06.2024, 11.09.2024 and 13.12.2024 of the Estate Officer, P.E.C., refusing retention of the house beyond six months (06.03.2024–05.09.2024) following his relief from P.E.C. w.e.f. 06.03.2024 on deputation as Director-Principal, Rewari, and directing deposit of penal licence fee (slabs of 50x/100x/200x the normal licence fee) for occupation from 06.09.2024. Petitioner claimed retention for up to 60 months citing the notifications dated 24.05.1993 (MHRD) and 16.06.2017 (Ministry of Urban Development, Directorate of Estates) read with Rule 40, contending the Allotment Rules of 1996 no longer applied as P.E.C. had become autonomous. Held: the house belongs to the U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool; allotment of all such residences is strictly governed by the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996, which do not envisage retention beyond six months after posting outside U.T. territory; the six-month extension stood already sanctioned and no provision permits further extension, so the competent authority rightly declined and levied penal rent; counsel could not show why the notifications should displace the Allotment Rules. Petition dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

114 CWP-2049-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 27, 2026

¶3

DR. JAGDISH KUMAR

¶4

-PETITIONER

¶5

V/S

¶6

DIRECTOR, PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), SECTOR 12, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

¶7

-RESPONDENTS

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: Mr. S.S. Pathania, Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Guleria, Advocate for the petitioner (Through V.C.)

¶10

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rohan Sachdev, Advocate, Mr. Gandharv Malhotra, Advocate, and Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM-6471-CWP-2026

¶14

As prayed for, the application is allowed . Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondents, along with Annexures P-17 and P-18, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

CWP-2049-2025

¶16

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner assails the orders dated 13.12.2024, 11.09.2024 and 12.06.2024, and further seeks issuance of directions to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider his case for retention of the house in question during the period of his deputation.

¶17

The petitioner predicates his claim for retention of the house in

¶18

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶19

¶20

CWP-2049-2025 (O&M)

¶21

question, allotted from the U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool, for a period of up to 60 months despite his deputation outside Chandigarh, upon the notification dated 24.05.1993 issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education), as well as the notification dated 16.06.2017 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development (Directorate of Estates).

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of allotment of the house in question on 25.11.2003, the petitioner’s employer, namely Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “P.E.C.”), was under the aegis of the U.T. Chandigarh Administration, however, it has since acquired the status of an autonomous body. It is thus contended that the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Allotment Rules”) would not govern the terms of allotment, and instead the notification dated 16.06.2017 ( supra ) would apply. Placing reliance upon Rule 40 thereof, it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to retain the house in question during deputation for a period of 60 months on payment of normal licence fee.

¶23

Before proceeding to examine the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is deemed apposite to make a swift survey of the undisputed factual matrix.

¶24

The petitioner joined P.E.C. as a Lecturer in Electrical Engineering and was allotted House No.548, Sector 11, Chandigarh, vide allotment letter dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure P-1), issued by the House Allotment Committee of P.E.C., subject to the terms and conditions

¶25

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶26

¶27

CWP-2049-2025 (O&M)

¶28

stipulated therein. Two such terms and conditions, being important, are extracted hereunder:-

¶29

“6. Rent will be charged from the allottee as per instructions issued by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time.

¶30

7. Subletting, additions and alterations in government houses are now allowed. In case of any subletting, additions and alterations etc. the allotment of government house will be cancelled and allottees will be charged damages and will be evicted by Estate Officer, Chandigarh.”

¶31

Subsequently, vide order dated 08.02.2024, the petitioner was

¶32

appointed as Director-Principal, RBS State Institute of Engineering and Technology, Rewari, on deputation for a period of three years, and was relieved from P.E.C. w.e.f. 06.03.2024. In terms of the Allotment Rules (amended from time to time), the petitioner was entitled to retain the allotted accommodation for a period of six months. Accordingly, the petitioner, vide email dated 12.06.2024, requested the Estate Officer-II, P.E.C., to allow him to retain the house in question, for some personal issues, as per norms of the institute. The relevant excerpt from the email reads as follows:-

¶33

“….I may be allowed to retain the government accommodation allotted to me as per norms of the institute. It may be noted that I have not been allotted any other government house anywhere else till date and time.”

¶34

The Estate Officer-II, P.E.C., vide communication dated 12.06.2024, permitted retention of the house in question for six months, i.e. from 06.03.2024 to 05.09.2024, on payment of normal licence fee as per the Allotment Rules. In view of the granted extension, the petitioner retained the house in question and paid the normal licence fee. Upon expiry of the extension period, the petitioner sought further extension vide email dated 04.09.2024. However, the request was declined, and vide letter dated

¶35

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶36

CWP-2049-2025 (O&M)

¶37

¶38

11.09.2024, the Estate Officer informed the petitioner that the licence fee for the government accommodation had been revised, and consequently, a penalty would be levied in terms of the rules for the period starting from 06.09.2024 until the actual date of vacation. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the house in question, accompanied by a No Dues Certificate in respect of water and electricity charges. The petitioner’s efforts did not cease at this stage, and he submitted additional representations, which are annexed as Annexures P-11 and P-12 with the petition. Ultimately, the competent authority, namely the Estate Officer, passed the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, whereby the petitioner was informed that no further permission could be granted for retaining the house beyond 05.09.2024, and he was directed to deposit the penalty amount for the period from 06.09.2024 to 05.12.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.12.2024 is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶39

“…Therefore, the penalty for the period from 06.09.2024 to till the vacation of house shall be deposited as per following:-

¶40

1. Beyond 6 months and up to 8 months from date of relieving – 50 times the normal licence fee

¶41

2. Beyond 8 months and up to 9 months from date of relieving – 100 times the normal licence fee

¶42

3. Beyond 9 months and up to date of vacation – 200 times the normal licence fee.

¶43

Since the house is not vacated till date, you are hereby requested to deposit the penal licence fee for the period from 06.09.2024 to 05.12.2024 as per above.”

¶44

It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner was

¶45

subsequently assigned additional charge of Director-Principal, State Institute of Engineering and Technology, Panchkula, vide order dated 13.06.2025, which he joined on 17.07.2025. However, the said additional charge was

¶46

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶47

CWP-2049-2025 (O&M)

¶48

¶49

withdrawn on 13.11.2025. Thus, at best, the petitioner could have retained the house in question during the subsistence of his additional charge at Panchkula upon payment of normal licence fee.

¶50

This Court now proceeds to examine the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶51

In the considered view of this Court, the Rules/Notifications invoked by learned counsel for the petitioner bear no applicability to the conditions governing the allotment of the house in question. A plain reading of the allotment letter (Annexure P-1) reveals that rent is to be charged from the allottee as per instructions issued by the Chandigarh Administration from time to time. Moreover, despite allotment by P.E.C., the house belongs to the U.T. Chandigarh Administration General Pool and was made available to P.E.C. for allotment to its employees. Therefore, the Allotment Rules assume paramount relevance in the instant case, mandating that allotment of all government residences belonging to Chandigarh Administration falling in different pools be strictly governed thereby. The relevant provision of the Allotment Rules is extracted hereunder:-

¶52

“(Amended Vide Notification No. 2020/A5/20 dated 18.1.2021)

¶53

2. The allotment of all Government residences belonging to Chandigarh Administration falling in different Pools shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of these rules.”

¶54

The Allotment Rules do not envisage retention of the house in

¶55

question by the petitioner beyond six months post his posting outside the U.T. Chandigarh territory, and the said six-month extension had already been sanctioned from 06.03.2024 to 05.09.2024. There being no provision under the Allotment Rules for grant of any further extension beyond the said period, the competent authority has rightly declined the petitioner’s request

¶56

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶57

¶58

CWP-2049-2025 (O&M)

¶59

and has proceeded to levy penal rent for the period of unauthorized occupation.

¶60

Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate as to why the Allotment Rules, under which the house in question was allotted, should not apply, while the notifications relied upon by him should govern instead.

¶61

Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merit,

¶62

is hereby dismissed .

¶63

(KULDEEP TIWARI) April 27, 2026 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶64

DEVINDER YADAV 2026.04.29 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Jagdish Kumar v. Director, Pec( Deemed University), Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Kumar v. Director, Pec( Deemed University), Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harilal Singh Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Bathinda

Shishupal Verma Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala and Another

Mahinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chuttani Charitable Trust and Chuttani Medical Centre Vs Union of India and Others

Gurcharan Singh Vs Additioinal Deputy Commissioner and Anr.

Gurminder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others