Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Pb. And Ors on 22 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 1 2023:PHHC:125682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1689 of 2005(O&M)
Reserved on: 04.08.2023
Pronounced on: 22nd September, 2023
Gurnam Singh .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G.Punjab.
Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate,
for respondents no.2 to 4.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J
1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the
impugned orders passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the claim for out of turn
allotment of the government accommodation to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner's father expired on 18.11.2001
while in service as Superintendent Grade-I of Punjab Civil Secretariat.
Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application seeking compassionate
appointment in January 2002, however, on account of there being ban in the
Punjab Government for two years, he could not be appointed and was
ultimately appointed as Clerk on 25.05.2004. As one year period was over in
terms of Rule 11 of the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration
1 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:125682
General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Allotment
Rules of 1996), as further amended by the Rules of 1997, notice was sent to the
petitioner to vacate the premises, allotted to his late father which was in his
possession was cancelled w.e.f 30.04.2003. In the notice dated 08.10.2003, the
petitioner was held liable to pay penal rent w.e.f 29.04.2003.
3. The petitioner after having submitted his representation which
remained unanswered, preferred the present Civil Writ Petition before this
Court. He submits that as per provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules
of 1996, the family of the deceased Govt. Employee was entitled to retain the
Govt. accommodation for a maximum period of one year and the dependent of
the deceased was also entitled for out of turn allotment if he was given
compassionate appointment. However, as the petitioner's compassionate
appointment was delayed, the petitioner ought to be allowed to retain the
government accommodation. The petitioner also prayed that he may be granted
out of turn allotment and also the penal rent be waived off and the order of
cancellation of allotment be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the
provisions added lateron to the Rule 11 of the Allotment Rules of 1996, the
petitioner was still eligible to retain the house and for out of turn allotment and
the cancellation order is liable to be declared bad in law. He further points out
that the petitioner, on its own, vacated the premises and shifted to his own
house on 02.02.2023 and the premises have already been handed over to the
Chandigarh Administration. The respondents are, however, pressing for
payment of penal rent while the petitioner has been paying normal licence fee
till he has vacated the premises.
2 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:125682
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Chandigarh Administration submits that the petitioner has illegally and
wrongfully held the premises which was originally allotted to his father.
6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had not been offered
compassionate appointment for a period of one year for which he was allowed
to hold the premises without payment of rent. The said benefit having been
granted, he could not have taken additional benefit. Learned counsel further
submits that after 29.04.2003 i.e expiry of one year, the occupation of the
petitioner would be termed as illegal and he is liable to pay the penal rent and
the demand made by the respondent-Chandigarh Administration cannot be said
to be illegal or unjustified.
7. I have heard the submissions.
8. Vide order dated 31.01.2005, this Court granted stay on the
cancellation order dated 08.10.2003. Another CM was filed by this petitioner
to restrain from charging penal rent and vide order dated 21.12.2006, the Court
passed an interim order restraining the respondents from charging penal rent.
The interim order dated 21.12.2006 was made absolute vide order dated
24.08.2007. Thus, the petitioner continued to occupy the same government
residence which was allotted to his late father till he has vacated it after
constructing his own house in 2023. While he was appointed as a Clerk, he
was occupying the house which is meant for a Superintendent which is of a
much higher level and was unauthorized as per Rules. Be that as it may, as the
occupation of the house was in terms of interim orders passed by this Court,
the question would arise whether the petitioner can be said to be occupying the
house illegally or unauthorizedly.
9. It would be apposite to quote Rules 11 and 13 of the Allotment
Rules of 1996, which read as under:-
3 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:125682
"11. Out of Turn Allotment S.R.-317-AM-11.(1) The House
Allotment Committee may allot a house on out of turn basis in the
following cases.
(a) Allotment of residence to the member of the family of
deceased Government employee:
(i ) When a Government employee in occupation of a
Government residence dies while in service,
accommodation may be allotted to his spouse, family
comprising of dependent or a son, or an unmarried
daughter, on compassionate grounds, subject to fulfilment
of other prescribed conditions including that of not owning
a house in Union Territory, Chandigarh, Mohali or
Panchkula.
(ii) Thus, if a Government employee dies in harness
and was living in a Government accommodation, his
family comprising of dependent would be allowed to retain
the same house as prescribed below. However, if the
deceased was working in department which has its own
pool of houses, the house would be allotted to be retained
from that pool only.
(iii) That if the deceased was working at Chandigarh but
he and his family were not living in Chandigarh, no claim
shall be entertained.
(iv) if the allottee expired during retention period, no
claim shall be entertained.
(v) Provided that if the allottee was allowed retention after
transfer outside Chandigarh and expired during retention
period, no claim shall be entertained.
(vi)That if the deceased was residing in earmarked house,
his/her family will have to vacate the earmarked house
and a general category house will be allotted to the family
as per his/her entitlement.
(vii) Provided that if the deceased is working elsewhere
and living at Chandigarh no claim shall be entertained.
4 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:125682
(viii) if within three years of the death of the allottee, kin
get a Government job then the kin shall be allotted house
of his entitled category though on out of turn basis:
Provided that such accommodation shall not be
higher than the type to which such member of the family of
the deceased is entitled.
Provided further that such member of the family of
the deceased applying for allotment under this sub rule
shall not be allotted accommodation of a type higher than
the type already in occupation of the deceased even though
the applicant may be entitled to such higher type.
(Amended vide Notification No.1650 dated 8th June,
2010).
(aa) When a Government employee in occupation of a
Government residence, retires on medical ground, before the age
of 55 years, his/ her members of the family who is already in
Government service shall also be entitled to the allotment of
Government accommodation of the entitled category under the
aforementioned rule.
(As amended vide Notification Nos. 459 dated 5.9.1997, 543
dated 11.11.1997, 444 dated 16.7.2003 and 504 dated 4.8.2004)
(b) Allotment of residence to spouse of Government
accommodation is transferred outside Chandigarh:
When a Government employee in occupation of
Government accommodation is transferred outside Chandigarh,
the same residence may be transferred in the name of his spouse
subject to the condition that the spouse is working in an eligible
office and is entitled to the same type of accommodation.
However, in case the spouse is not entitled to the same type
he/she may be allotted a residence of his/her entitlement:
Provided further that such spouse shall not be allotted
accommodation under this sub-rule of a type higher than the type
already in occupation of the transferred employee even though
the applicant may be entitled to such higher type.
5 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 6 2023:PHHC:125682
(c) Allotment of residence to spouse on retirement of
Government employee:-
When a Government employee in occupation of
government accommodation retires, the same residence may be
transferred in the name of the spouse subject to the condition that
such spouse is working in an eligible office and is entitled to the
said type of accommodation. However, in case the spouse is not
entitled to the said type he/she may be made an allotment as per
his/her entitlement:
Provided that such spouse shall not be allotted
accommodation under this sub-rule of a type higher than the type
already in occupation of the retiree even though the applicant
may be entitled to such higher type.
The House Allotment Committee (Upper) in its meeting
held on 16.11.1998, vide agenda item No. 8 decided as under:-
"The Committee decided to allot a house of her entitled
category to Smt. Jaishri Rana, Lecturer out of the General Pool.
The Committee further decided that as a matter of Policy,
spouses of employees occupying govt. accommodation out of a
departmental pool be allotted their entitled category
accommodation out of the general pool following the retirement
of the employee in occupation of departmental accommodation."
(d) Allotment of residence to Government employee vacating
earmarked house:
When a Government employee in occupation of earmarked
accommodation of the General Pool ceases to hold the post for
which the said accommodation is earmarked, he shall be allotted
a house of his entitled category under this sub-rule subject to the
condition that the employee continues to be posted at
Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, except the District Level
Offices or those offices which are not State Level Offices at
Panchkula or Mohali:
6 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 7 2023:PHHC:125682
Provided that if the house of entitled category is not
available, he shall be allotted a house of category below
entitlement :
(e) Allotment of a residence to a government employee due to
functional requirements:
This sub rule stands struck off in view of the Judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
S.L.P.No.15714 of 2011 titled as 'Asha Sharma and others Versus
Chandigarh Administration and another'.
(f) Allotment of a residence to a Government employee in
exceptional circumstances of hardship or in publicinterest.
A Government employee of an eligible office may, for the
reasons to be recorded in writing, be allotted a residence of the
entitlement under this sub-rule in exceptional circumstances of
hardship or in publicinterest.
Provided that the Government employee owning house in
Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula in his own name or in the
name of his spouse or any of his dependent children shall not be
entitled for allotment of residence under this sub-rule.
(*The House Allotment Committee (Upper) held on 10.6.2014
has decided to allot houses of the entitled category for all
employees/officers in the cases of out of Turn Allotments Rule
under Rule SR-317-AM-11(1)(f).)
"Out of turn allotment" of houses will not be considered
for any applicant who is already in occupation of government
house unless the occupant has spent 5 years in existing house
except in exceptional/ medical grounds.
This will apply to even such cases, where the allottee is
staying in government accommodation below his entitled
category. He has to follow the queue for allotment in the entitled
category.
(Amended Vide notification No. 681 dated 18/31st July, 2019)
(g) Allotment of Residences to a Government employee on
transfer to States of Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Meghalaya,
7 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 8 2023:PHHC:125682
Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram and
Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands
andLakshadweep.
A Government employee of an eligible office, already in
occupation of Chandigarh Administration General Pool house of
his entitled category at the time of allotment and not on the date
of his transfer to State of Jammu and Kashmir, Assam,
Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram
and Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and
Lakshadweep shall be allotted accommodation of one type below
the type of accommodation in his occupation, in the same or
nearby locality, in case the officers request for allotment of
alternativeaccommodation.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, not more than
10% of the houses allotted in a year under clauses (e) and (f), shall be
allotted on out of turn basis. This limit shall, however, be not
applicable in respect of out of turn allotments under clauses (a) to (d)
of sub rule(1).
The House Allotment Committee (Upper) in its meeting
held on 27.3.2003, approved the following guidelines for out of
turn allotments which were issued by the Chandigarh
Administration vide its letter dated 1.5.2003:-
Rule 11(f) provided for out of turn allotment of
Government residence to an eligible Govt. employee "in
exceptional circumstances of hardship or in public interest"
subject, of course, to the conditions mentioned in the proviso.
1. Cases of Physical and mental handicap, widows,
blinds, applicants or their spouses suffering from Cancer
or Aids or mentally retarded, being cases of exceptional
hardships warranting out of turn allotment on
compassionate grounds would be considered under Rule
11(f) being covered under "exceptional circumstances of
hardship".
It is made clear that the disability of the applicant/
dependent of the applicant duly certified by the Medical
8 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 9 2023:PHHC:125682
Board of the concerned State/ Chandigarh Administration,
U.T., Govt. would only be considered for out of turn
allotment on Medical Grounds.
2. So far as Public interest is concerned, cases of those
employees would be considered who in public interest, have to
perform official duties and other such functions as would warrant
out of turn allotment of Govt. accommodation. The following
factors would be pertinent in this regard:-
i) The employee should be working with a public servant
whose nature of official responsibility and duty is such as
would necessitate working beyond the normal office hours,
the supervisory public servant would certify that the
official for whom an out of turn allotment is being
recommended by him also has to perform such official
responsibility/ duty which require him to work at odd
hours/ on holidays/ beyond office hours etc. and that out of
turn allotment of Govt. house is, therefore, essential in
order to enable such official to discharge his duty
satisfactorily.
The name of only such official should be
recommended by the supervisory official who has worked
with him for a period not less than 6 months continuously.
ii) Twenty (20) recommendations each shall be made by
the Punjab and Haryana Governments and Chandigarh
Administration'; Fourteen (14) recommendations shall be
made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh. The recommendations shall be routed
through the Chief Secretary to the respective Government/
Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and in case
of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, through
the Registrar General. These recommendations will be
considered in a year for allotment of Govt.
accommodation on out of turn basis on functional
requirement, in Public interest, keeping in view the
comparative staff strength.
9 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 10 2023:PHHC:125682
3. No allotment of house be made on out of turn basis on security
grounds.
4. Such employees who are already in occupation of Govt.
accommodation out of the Chandigarh Administration Gneral
Pool/ departmental pool houses/ state Govt. house would not be
entitled for out of turn allotment of the Chandigarh
Administration General Pool.
5. There is provision of 10% of the houses allotted in a year
to each categories on out of turn basis under Rule SR-317-AM-
11(2) of Govt. Residences (Chandigarh Administration General
Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996.
6. The number of houses allotted on out turn category, shall
not at any point of time, during the year exceed 10% of the
houses allotted till that time. For allotment to be made under sub
clause (a) to (d) of rule 11, there is no restriction of 10% as per
Notification No. 297 dated 2.6.97. Out of the 10% for the cases of
hardship and in public interest 50% quota be reserved for
physically handicapped person, widows, blind, applicants or
their spouses suffering from Cancer, Aids or Mentally retarded.
The cases of functional requirement and public interest be
considered for out of the balance quota of 50%. This would be
dependent upon the number of vacant houses arising in a year. It
will be ensured that the quota is not exceeded. The requests for
allotment in the cases of hardship i.e. physically handicapped
persons, widows, blind applicants or their etc. shall also be
routed through the Chief Secretary to Govt. Punjab/ Haryana,
Registrar, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh as well as
Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is
desirable that the facts of each case are got checked by the
respective Heads before making recommendations. (Amended
vide Notification Nos. 297 dated 2.6.97)
Rule 13. Period for which allotment subsists and concessional
period for further retention-S.R.-317-AM-13(1). An allotment
10 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 11 2023:PHHC:125682
shall be effective from the date on which it is accepted by the
Government servant and shall remain in force until:-
(a) the expiry of the concessional period mentioned in
column 2 of the Table given in sub-rule (2):
(b) It is cancelled or is deemed to have been
cancelled under these rules.
(c) It is surrendered by the Government employee:
or
(d) The employee ceases to occupy the residence.
(2) A residence allotted to a Government employee may,
subject to sub-rule
(3), be retained on the happening of any of the events
specified in column I, of the Table below for the period
specified in corresponding entry in column 2 thereof.
TABLE
Events Permission period of retention of residence(2)
1. Retirement, Terminal leave,Resignation, dismissal or Four Months.
removal from Service, termination of services or
Unauthorized absence without permission.
2. Transfer outside Chandigarh. Six months.
3. Temporary transfer in or outside India. Six months.
4. Leave (other than leave preparatory to Retirement, For the entire period of leave.
refused leave, terminal leave.)
5. Leave preparatory to retirement or Refused leave For the full period of leave on full average pay subject to a
granted under F.R..86.
maximum of six months inclusive of the period permissible
in the case of retirement.
6. Deputation outside India One year
7. On proceeding on training For full period of Training.
8. Death of the allottee One year (extendable upto three years in case where the
deceased officer/ official or his/ her dependent does not
own a house in Union Territory, Chandigarh, Mohali or
Panchkula.
9. Transfer to State of Jammu & Kashmir, Assam, On payment of flat rate/normal licence fee upto 30.6.2002
Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, or till revised orders are issued by Union Territories of the
Mizoram and Union Territories of Andaman and Government of India, whichever is earlier. As per decision
Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep. of the H.A.C(U) taken in its meeting held on 7.4.2021 that
those allottees who are further transferred from hard area
to another soft area (except Chandigarh) can further
retain Government house for a period of six months from
the date of relieving from hard area on payment of normal
licence fee.
11 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 12 2023:PHHC:125682
Explanation.- The period permissible on transfer
mentioned against events 2 and 3 shall count from the date
of relinquishing the charge. The period for which the
Government employee remains on leave before joining
duty at the new office shall not be taken into account in
calculating the permissible period.
3. When a residence is retained under events (2) and (3) of
the table in subrule (2), the allotment shall be deemed to have
been cancelled on the expiry of the admissible concessional
period unless immediately on the expiry thereof the Government
employee resumes duty in an eligible office in the Chandigarh.
4. A government employee who has retained the residence by
virtue of the concession under event (1) of the Table in sub-rule
(2), shall on reinstatement in an eligible office within the period
specified in the said Table, be entitled to retain that residence and
shall also be eligible for any further allotment or residence under
these rules.
(Amended vide notification No. 2978, dated 17.12.2009)
(Proviso to this sub rule deleted vide notification No. 2978,
dated 17.12.2009.)
5. (This sub rule stands struck down in view of the judgment
dated 0.8.2011 passed in SLP No.15714 of 2011 titled as 'Asha
Sharma Versus Chandigarh Administration and others.)
Note:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide its judgement
dated 30.8.2011 passed in SLP No. 15714 of 2011 titled as
"Asha Sharma Versus Chandigarh Administration, specifically
not to allow retention of houses under this sub rule i.e. under
Sub Rule 13.5.
6. In case the government employee, who has been
transferred outside Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, rejoins at
Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali except the District Level
Offices or those offices which are not State Level Offices at
Panchkula or Mohali, within the period as prescribed in column
2 of the table under sub-rule (2), the allotment of the same
residence shall be regularized in his/her name.
12 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 13 2023:PHHC:125682
Provided that Government employee, who are in
occupation of Chandigarh Administration General Pool
accommodation at the time of proceeding on foreign service at
Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, except the District Level
Offices or those offices which are not State Level Offices at
Panchkula or Mohali, shall be allowed to continue in occupation
of the accommodation on payment of five times the normal
licence fee as long as they retain lien on a post in an eligible
office on their rejoining in the eligible office, the allotment of the
same residence shall be regularized in his /her name.
7. The retention of house under event 9 of the table appended
to sub rule (2) shall be permissible to All India Services Officers
& (Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, Indian
Forest Service) as per details given herein below namely:-
(a) Officer of All India Services from a State Cadre other
than the States in the North Eastern Region/ Union
Territories cadre are sent on deputation to the North
Eastern Region, (Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland,
Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram) in public
interest so long as they are on deputation to the North
Eastern Region/Jammu and Kashmir.
(b) All India Services Officers of Union Territory Cadre
who are posted to one of the two Union Territories viz.
Andaman and Nicobar, Island, Lakshadweep/Jammu and
Kashmir.
(c) Officers of All India Services Cadre borne on the State
cadre belonging to Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura and Nagaland, who
revert to the cadres at the end of the normal tenure with
the Central Government, for a period of 2 years including
the period of retention admissible under the rules at
present. Such All India Services Officers of these States
who have to revert Pre-maturely in Public interest maybe
allowed the concession of retention of accommodation/
13 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 14 2023:PHHC:125682
allotment of alternative accommodation for the balance
period of their tenure of two years, whichever, is longer.
(Amended vide Notification Nos. 97 dated 18.2.98, 176
dated 10.5.99, 345 dated 9.8.99, 630 dated 15.7.2002,504
dated 4.8.2004)."
10. In ASHA SHARMA V. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION
AND OTHERS, (2011) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 86, Supreme Court
has held as under:-
"53. Consequently, reverting to the case of the appellant, she is
admittedly occupying an earmarked house. An order of eviction and
damages has been passed against her and she has taken recourse to an
appropriate remedy or against which she has already taken an
appropriate remedy. The matter in that behalf is still pending final
hearing before the learned Single Judge. The parties are left to raise
all their contentions before the learned Single Judge, who shall decide
the matter in accordance with law. However, with regard to the interim
order passed by the High Court, we direct the State to allot to her an
alternative accommodation under the category which she is entitled to,
in pursuance of her appointment as the State Information
Commissioner, within fifteen days from today and she shall be liable to
vacate the accommodation presently in her occupation within two
weeks thereafter. We make it clear that in the event the Government is
unable to allot her an alternative accommodation of her category for
the reason of non-availability of such accommodation, she should be
provided with appropriate accommodation, including private
accommodation of her status, within the same period."
11. In UNION OF INDIA V. VIMAL BHAI AND ORS. (2014) 13
SUPREME COURT CASES 766, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"5. In view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in S.D. Bandi v.
Karnataka SRTC, notice ordered by this Court for vacating the
government accommodation from those who are unauthorisedly
occupying the same is discharged with the direction that the
14 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 15 2023:PHHC:125682
Government and the agencies concerned must take action strictly in
accordance with para 33 of the judgment in S.D. Bandi case'"
12. In LOK PRAHARI V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
ORS. (2016) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 389, the Apex Court has held as
under:-
"41. This Court, in S.D. Bandi v. Kararaka SRTC in relation to
occupation of goverment bungalows, beyond the period for which the
same were allotted, observed that: (SCC p. 649, para 34)
"34. It is unfortunate that the employees, officers,
representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue to
stay in the residential accommodation provided by the
Government of India though they are no longer entitled to such
accommodation. Many of such persons continue to occupy
residential accommodation commensurate with the office(s)
held by them earlier and which are beyond their present
entitlement. The unauthorised occupants must recollect that the
rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person
entail the duties of another person similarly the duty of one
person entails the rights of another person. Observing this, the
unauthorised occupants must appreciate that their at of
overstaying in the premise directly infringes the right of
another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of
disobedience but for the sir realisation among the unauthorised
occupants."
46. So far as allotment of bungalow to private trusts of
societies is concerned, it is not is dispute that all those
bungalows were allotted to the societies/trusts/organizations at
the time when there was no provision with regard to allotment
of government bungalows to them and therefore, in our opinion,
the said allotment cannot be held to be justified. One should
remember here that public property cannot be disposed of in
favour of any one without adequate consideration. Allotment of
government property to someone without adequate market rent,
in absence of any special statutory provision, would also be
bad in law because the state has no right to fritter away
15 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 16 2023:PHHC:125682
government property in favour of private persons or bodies
without adequate consideration and therefore, all such
allotments, which have been made in absence of any statutory
provision cannot be upheld. If any allotment was not made in
accordance with a statutory provision at the relevant time, it
must be discontinued and must be treated as cancelled and the
State shall take possession of such premises as soon as possible
and at the same time, the State should also recover appropriate
rent in respect of such premises which had been allotted
without any statutory provision.
47. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with
no order as to costs and it is held that the 1997 Rules so far as
they are not in consonance with the provisions of the 1981 Act
are bad in law. The government bungalows allotted to the
respondents is held to be bad in law and the respondents
concerned shall hand over possession of the bungalows
occupied by them within two months from today and the
respondent Government shall also recover appropriate rent
from the occupants of the said bungalows for the period during
which they were in unauthorised occupation of the said
bungalows."
13. Thus, on perusal of the Rules (supra) and the aforesaid
judgments, this Court finds that while at the time when the impugned order
was passed, the provision only allowed one year retainership after death of the
Govt. servant to his family members but lateron several amendments have been
made and different situations have been considered wherein the family can
retain the accommodation allotted to Govt. servant.
14. Keeping in view the above principles, this Court is of the firm
view that accommodation cannot be occupied illegally or unauthorizedly and if
it is found to be illegal or unauthorized, not only directions have to be issued to
vacate the premises but penal rent along with interest may be imposed on such
occupant.
16 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 17 2023:PHHC:125682
15. Coming to the facts of this case, as noticed above, this Court
finds that the petitioner was entitled for out of turn allotment after he was
granted compassionate appointment. Before he was granted compassionate
appointment, he was entitled to continue occupying the house already allotted
to his late father but it appears that when the case came up before this Court
initially, it was not brought to the knowledge of the Court that the house to be
allotted to the petitioner would be of a different category then the house he was
occupying. Resultantly, he continued to occupy the house in terms of the
interim order passed by this Court. The penal rent imposed was also stayed by
this Court and the interim order was made absolute. The said interim order was
not challenged by the respondents in LPA nor any application was moved to
vacate the interim order. The petitioner, on the other hand, has vacated the
premises after he has built his own house. It is not the case of the respondents
that the petitioner has not paid the licence fee as applicable to the concerned
house allotted to his late father.
16. In these circumstances, from the facts which have come on
record and as noticed here-in-above, it is apparent that the petitioner has
continued to occupy the house which was not authorized to him as per status
and post and he could only occupy house of the category available to the post
but on account of the interim orders passed by the Court, he continued to hold
occupancy for more than 17 years. Keeping in view the principle of "Actus
Curiae Neminem Gravabit" i.e no one should be made to suffer on account
of the orders of the Court has to be taken into consideration and while this
Court finds that the petitioner was not required to pay penal rent in terms of the
interim order passed by the Court which had been made absolute, the
Chandigarh Administration Authorities cannot be denied completely their right
17 of 18
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
CWP No.1689-2005(O&M) 18 2023:PHHC:125682
to claim legal dues from the petitioner otherwise unauthorizedly occupying the
premises.
Therefore, maintaining the equity amongst both of them, this
Court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
respondent - Chandigarh Administration as a one time compensation in
lieu of penal rent. The said amount shall be paid in 10 equal instalments.
The present order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and
ought not be treated as a precedent.
17. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed.
18. All pending applications in this writ petition shall stand dispose
of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
nd
22 September, 2023 JUDGE
mamta
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125682
18 of 18
