CWP No. 10310 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10310 of 2011 Date of Decision 02.06.2011 Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh -----Petitioner Versus Smt. Rajinder Kaur Dhadda and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner.. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal has held that the original applicant- respondent while working as Nursing Superintendent in the General Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh cannot be asked to pay electricity/ water charges @ 18% per annum particularly after her voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.2005. 2. It is appropriate to mention that on the basis of CWP No. 10310 of 2011 -2- some audit objection a sum of ` 2,06,094/- was withheld on account of electricity and water charges in respect of the period commencing from 1995 to 2005 and DCRG amounting to ` 1,22,735/- was released to her. Despite submitting detailed representation alleging that she was living in hospital campus along with a number of other persons such as Mrs. Satinder Kaur Bajwa, Mrs. Daniel, Mrs. Palwinder Kaur and Mrs. Brij Bala Kapoor, he was singled out for payment of electricity and water charges. She asserted in the representation that all the nursing staff living in the hospital campus were exempted from any such payment. The aforesaid representation was rejected. The amount of DCRG was withheld and appropriated for the charges of water and electricity. The Tribunal accepted the stand of the original applicant-respondent, which was based on the policy decision dated 18.01.1968 (A-3). The Tribunal further found that a number of colleagues of the original applicant-respondent have not been charged for electricity and water; and the instructions dated 07.12.2005 (R-3) issued by petitioner-Administration were not to govern the case of the original applicant-respondent because she had retired on 31.10.2005 when the instructions dated 18.01.1968 had held field. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from paras 14 and 15, which reads thus: “14. A perusal of the Policy decision dated 18.01.1968, Annexure A-3, issued by the Government of Punjab, leaves no scope for CWP No. 10310 of 2011 -3- doubt that the Government had sanctioned free use of electricity and water to all the nursing Staff/ living in the Nurses Hostels/ Homes allotted to the Institutions/ Hospitals. The legality of this policy decision has not even been disputed by the respondents. Their objection is that on their request, it has been clarified by the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure R-3) that no water and electricity charges are taken from Nursing Staff living in Nursing Hostel of Punjab and that no such facility for free electricity and water are there for Nursing Staff living in the Government Accommodation. However, there is not a single word on the sole point raised by the applicant as to what happened to the policy decision dated 18.2.1968 in which even the Nursing Staff residing in homes in the campus is entitled to use of free electricity and water charges. That decision has not yet been repealed or withdrawn by the competent authority. In any case, the applicant stood retired on 31.10.2005 and clarification has been issued thereafter. Meaning thereby that the case of the applicant is to be dealt with under the basic policy decision dated CWP No. 10310 of 2011 -4- 18.2.1968 under which there is a clear cut provision granting exemption to the category to which the applicant belongs from electricity and water charges. 15. Secondly, the colleagues of the applicant as mentioned in the O.A., have indeed been given the benefit of free use of electricity and water in the past and this fact has not been disputed by the respondents. Thus, denial of the same benefit to the applicant would amount to hostile discrimination, being similarly situated and similarly covered by the earlier policy decision dated 18.02.1968. Thus O.M. was neither withdrawn nor has been superseded by any other O.M. till date. In so far as the case of Smt. Chander Prabha (supra) is concerned, we find that the claim of the applicant therein was dismissed on the ground that she was not covered under the category of Nursing Staff, as she was a Lady House-keeper. In any case the instructions dated 7.12.2005 would not govern the case of the applicant as she stood retired prior thereto. Thus, the facts of that case are distinguishable on facts and law.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner- CWP No. 10310 of 2011 -5- Administration at a considerable length and are of the view that the policy decision dated 18.01.1968 (A-3) had held field till 07.12.2005 when those policy instructions were superseded. However, the original applicant-respondent had retired w.e.f. 31.10.2005 and the later policy instructions dated 07.12.2005 (R-3) were not to govern the issue of payment of electricity and water charges. Accordingly, we are of the view that the opinion expressed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference particularly, if the original applicant-respondent had already been retired. The decision is based on correct appreciation of policy decision dated 18.01.1968 (A-3). The writ petition does not merit admission and the same is liable to the dismissed. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE June 02, 2011 Atul