IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16761 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: October 21, 2008 Kartar Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 prays for quashing order dated 18.4.2007 (P-8) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of 6 marla Plot No. 927 in Sector 2, Palwal, District Faridabad. A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents for allotment of plot to the petitioner under the quota reserved for Haryana Government employees has also been made. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in January 1999, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for brevity, ‘HUDA’) invited C.W.P. No. 16761 of 2007 applications for allotment of 6 marla plots in Sector 2, Palwal. The petitioner applied in the category of quota reserved for Haryana Government employees. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner was an employee of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and he had applied for 6 marla plot. In the draw of lots held on 27.5.1999, the petitioner was successful and he was allotted Plot No. 927, Sector 2, Palwal. However, he did not receive any allotment letter. On 10.10.1999, he requested the respondents to send the allotment letter. On 22.10.1999, the petitioner was informed that being the employee of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, he was not eligible for allotment of plot under the quota reserved for Haryana Government employees. 3. The petitioner came to know that one Shri Jagdish Chand, an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, was also declared in-eligible under the quota reserved for Haryana Government employees. Shri Jagdish Chand then approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 15888 of 2000 (Jagdish Chand v. State of Haryana and others). On 26.2.2002, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court directing the respondents to consider Shri Jagdish Chand eligible for allotment of plot under the quota reserved for Haryana Government employees and issue him allotment letter (P-5). 4. In the present case, the petitioner also pleaded before the respondents vide his letters dated 28.10.2005 and 24.11.2005 (P-6 & P-7) about the view taken by this Court in Jagdish Chand’s case (supra) and requested them to allot the plot. He then approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 11811 of 2006, which was disposed of 2 C.W.P. No. 16761 of 2007 with a direction to the Estate Officer, HUDA, to take a final decision on the representations. The prayer made by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.4.2007 (P-8), which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. 5. At the outset Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Thambu Ram v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others (C.W.P. No. 15958 of 2006, decided on 18.8.2008). In that case Shri Thambu Ram had applied for allotment of plot under the quota reserved for Haryana Government employees as he was working in the Haryana School Education Board, Bhiwani. If the employees of the Board are considered to be Government employees then there is no reason to declare the petitioner in-eligible merely because he was working in the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. Moreover, a Division Bench in the case of Jagdish Chand (supra) has also declared the employees of the Municipal Corporation to be treated as employees of the State Government for the purposes of allotment of plots. 6. Mr. R.S. Longia, learned counsel for the respondent HUDA has not been able to successfully distinguish between the cases of Jagdish Chand (supra) and Thambu Ram (supra) despite opposition. The matter is covered by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Jagdish Chand (supra) and there is no reason to differ with the same. 7. As a sequel to the above discussion, we allow the writ petition. Impugned order dated 18.4.2007 (P-8) is hereby quashed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to allot Plot No. 927, Sector 2, 3 C.W.P. No. 16761 of 2007 Palwal, measuring 6 marla, to the petitioner. The petitioner was allotted plot in the year 1999 and he kept on corresponding with the respondent HUDA but eventually approached this Court in the year 2006 and his representations remained pending consideration of the respondents. Therefore, to balance the equity it would be appropriate to charge the petitioner the rate of the plot which was prevalent in the year 2006 when he had filed his first petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 11811 of 2006. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) October 21, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4