IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19320 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 17, 2011. Harinderpal Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure P-12) whereby recovery of Rs.2,23,499/- is sought to be effected from him towards the penal rent for the alleged illegal and unauthorized retention of Government H.No.2864-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh, by him. The petitioner, who had joined the Technical Education Department, Punjab as a Lecturer, was promoted as Head of the Department in the year 1994 and then as Principal on 28.11.2000. The petitioner was thereafter, designated as Additional Director of the Department at Chandigarh on 25.2.2004 and was given additional charge of the said post. The petitioner on 29.6.2004 was appointed as Additional C.W.P.No .19320 of 2009 2 Director on regular basis and was allotted the Government accommodation, i.e. H.No.2864-A, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh. The petitioner was later on reverted to the post of the Principal vide an order dated 24.2.2006 and was posted as Principal of Government Polytechnic College (Girls) at Patiala. The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4736 of 2006 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.5.2007 with the following directions:- “.....The petitioner in the first instance came to be given additional officiating charge on 25.2.2004 and thereafter he was appointed as Additional Director on regular basis on 29.4.2004 (Annexure P-4). It would therefore be imperative for the respondents to limit such consideration only to such persons from the cadre of Principal who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility for selection as Additional Director, when the vacancy in question became available and when the petitioner was appointed as such, and on making such selection, to effect posting in terms of the mandate of the Appendix completed within two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order......” There is indeed no dispute that the petitioner was again held entitled for appointment/promotion as Additional Director and he joined the Head Office at Chandigarh on 14.9.2007. Since the ad-interim stay was not granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the above stated writ petition, he joined at Patiala as Principal till he was again appointed as Additional Director, as noticed C.W.P.No .19320 of 2009 3 above. During this period, the petitioner retained the Government accommodation at Chandigarh, allegedly beyond the permissible period w.e.f. 27.4.2006 to 6.7.2007 for which the penal rent is sought to be recovered form him vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record perused. Two important facts are not in dispute, namely, the house constructed for the Principal of the Government Polytechnic College (Girls) at Patiala had already been allotted to one Ravinder Singh, Head of the Department, ECI much before the petitioner was transferred and posted as Principal of that college. No residential accommodation was thus made available to the petitioner at Patiala. Secondly, the petitioner did not claim any house rent allowance/15% house rent admissible to him under the Rules during the period he remained posted as Principal at Patiala. Rather, the petitioner got deducted 5% of the basic pay towards rental of the Government accommodation allotted/occupied by him at Chandigarh. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner can be said to have retained the possession of the house in Chandigarh unauthorizedly? It has to be kept in view that had the respondents in the parent department not reverted the petitioner to the post of Principal and allowed him to continue as Additional Director to which post he was later on found entitled to, there would have been no occasion to shift the petitioner to Government Polytechnic College (Girls) at Patiala. Be that as it may, no Government C.W.P.No .19320 of 2009 4 house was made available to the petitioner at Patiala. In these circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case of sympathetic consideration and the equity also tilts towards him. There is one more circumstance which persuades this Court to take a lenient view, namely, the petitioner did apply for regularization of his possession vide application (Annexure P-7) which remained pending for long and was rejected in November, 2009 only. It may be mentioned here that after the petitioner was again appointed as Additional Director of the Department, the possession of the aforesaid house has been regularized and he is still occupying the same house in his capacity as Director, Technical Education, Punjab. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be wholly unfair to recover the penal rent from the petitioner for the period in dispute. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 27/30.11.2009 (Annexure P-12) to the extent of directing the petitioner to deposit the penal rent, is hereby quashed. Dasti. March 17, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE