IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6383 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:08.09.2011 Daya Nand, Electrician son of Dharam Singh, resident of House No.13/3592, Sector 22, Chandigarh, (presently posted as Electrician, PWD, B&R, Electrical, Sub-Division, Panchkula and working in new Secretariat, Haryana at Chandigarh). ...Petitioner versus Home Secretary-cum-Secretary, House Allotment Committee (Upper), U.T. Administration, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Inder Pal Singh Doabia, Advocate, for respondents 1 and 2. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the action of the Chandigarh Administration cancelling the allotment made to the petitioner on the ground that he is not an “eligible employee” to deserve the allotment under the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool Allotment) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). At the time of allotment, it appears that the Secretary, House Allotment Committee, had addressed a communication to the Sub Divisional Engineer to elicit Civil Writ Petition No.6383 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - information about the charge, that the petitioner was holding with the Electrical Sub Divisional PWD Office of the Executive Engineer, Ambala Cantonment, who replied that the petitioner was holding a substantive post and the office also issued another letter on 07.10.2010, intimating that the petitioner was working on a substantive post at Chandigarh. The same tenor of the letter was also maintained by the Superintending Engineer in his communication to the Allotment Committee. Although the Committee had been informed that the petitioner was holding a substantive post at Chandigarh, he was directed to remove himself on account of cancellation of the allotment which founded the cause of action for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner will point out to all these communications from the Executive Engineer's office and the Superintending Engineer's office at Ambala Cantonment and Karnal respectively. 2. The Chandigarh Administration would support its stand by referring to the definition of “eligible employee” under Section 2(h) of the Rules of 1996 and “eligible office” occurring under Section 2(i) to mean that the petitioner shall be an employee of the Government of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Administration on regular basis in an eligible office. Eligible office is defined as an office of the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh Administration and Punjab and Haryana High Court located at Chandigarh. The reproduction of these Rules would be relevant for a fuller understanding and their contextual reference to eligible employee and eligible office. “(h) “Eligible Employee” means an employee of the Civil Writ Petition No.6383 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - eligible office of the Government of Punjab, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh Administration or of Punjab and Haryana High Court working on regular basis in an eligible office or on foreign service having posting with substantive charge at Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali as long as he retains lien on a post in an eligible office, Mayor of the Municipal Corporation as also the employees of the Chandigarh Administration transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Chairman/President/Member of various Commissions/Boards/Consumer Forums etc. set up by the States of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Administration, who are employed on full time basis and are getting their salary from the consolidated Fund, and if employed on contractual basis their contractual period is not less than three years.” (Amended vide Notification Nos.299, dated 2.6.97, 283 dated 10.5.2001, 391, dated 18.6.2004) (i) “Eligible Office” means an office of the Governments of Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh Administration and Punjab and Haryana High Court located at Chandigarh, Panchkula or Mohali, the staff of which has been declared by the Chandigarh Administration to be eligible for accommodation under these rules, Office of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh in respect of the employees of the Chandigarh Administration transferred to Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, Chairman/President/Member of Civil Writ Petition No.6383 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 - various Commissions/Boards/Consumer Forums etc. set up by the States of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh Administration, who are employed on full time basis and are getting their salary from the consolidated Fund, and if employed on contractual basis their contractual period is not less than three years” and Chief Ministers/Ministers/Deputy Ministers/Leaders of opposition of Punjab and Haryana Government for houses in the Chief Ministers pool only. Provided that the employees of those departments of the Union Territory Administration, who have their own departmental pool, shall not be entitled for the allotment of houses from Chandigarh Administration Pool. Provided that officers/officials holding additional charge of a post at Chandigarh and having substantive charge outside Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula will not fall within the expression “Eligible Office”. (Amended vide notification Nos.229, dated 2.6.97, 86 dated 12.2.1998, 283, dated 10.5.2001)” 3. According to the respondents, the petitioner is ordered to be posted at Chandigarh in a post by the Executive Engineer, Electrical, PWD, B&R, Ambala Cantonment and he draws his salary also from the office at Ambala Cantonment. While the petitioner would contend that the 'eligible office' must be understood as any office of Haryana located at Chandigarh, the respondents would contend that the office, that is located at Chandigarh, must be the particular office to which the allottee Civil Writ Petition No.6383 of 2011 (O&M) - 5 - is attached. The only fact that the head office is located at Chandigarh, ought not to be the deciding criterion. 4. I uphold the contention of the Chandigarh Administration and hold that it would render violence to the language of Section 2(i) of the Rules to accommodate an office of Government of Haryana to mean any office whether the petitioner owes his employment to that particular office or not; whether he draws salary from the office or not; and whether the posting at Chandigarh is relatable to an order that has emanated from that office or not. In this case, the petitioner owes his position at Chandigarh to an order issued from the Executive Engineer, PWD, Ambala Cantonment, draws the salary from the Ambala Cantonment and he has to report to the office at Ambala Cantonment. The fact that the Principal Secretary, Electricity Department, Government of Haryana or the Superintending Engineer, Government of Electricity Department at Haryana, is located at Chandigarh, would be irrelevant. I will not make an issue that at a previous time, the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer were giving out letters to the effect that the petitioner was working in a substantive post at Chandigarh and later, there has been seemingly a volte face by the respective officers. I would not even reckon that to be a change in stand, for, the communications that have got exchanged between the officials of PWD, Electricity Department to the House Allotment Committee are only in relation to the nature of post. A substantive post at Chandigarh is only one half the story. The other side is that the 'eligible office' is not located, as far as the petitioner is concerned at Chandigarh. The communications relied on by Civil Writ Petition No.6383 of 2011 (O&M) - 6 - the petitioner do not address this difference. I do not, therefore, find any error in the impugned order. 5. The counsel for the petitioner pleads that his occupation is not unauthorized and no penalty shall be collected, since no erroneous representation was made at any time to gain an allotment. It was a bonafide interpretation of a Rule that he was seeking for and that he should, therefore, be not subjected to any penal levy. I uphold the plea and would grant the petitioner the time to relocate himself by three months. Till such period, the rent shall continue to be at the same rate at which it is already assessed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed but subject to the rights referred to above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 08.09.2011 sanjeev