IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10034 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.11.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Arun Kumar Gupta. .....Petitioner. Versus H.P. Housing Board & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers vide para 7(i) and (ii): “7(i) That the impugned order dated 27.09.2001 (Annexure A-5) issued by the respondent No. 2, letter/order dated 27.03.2002 (Annexure A-10), letter/order dated 27.05.2002 (Annexure A-13), letter/order dated 24.04.2002 (Annexure A-14) issued by the respondent No. 1, letter/order dated 28.05.2002 (Annexure A-15), letter/order dated 04.12.2002 (Annexure A-18) issued by the respondent No. 2 and letter/order dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure A-19) issued by the respondent No. 1 may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to charge the rent from the applicant two times of the standard licence fee for the period beyond the concessional period permitted under the rules in cases of retirement and transfers as provided under Rule X, Explanation 4 of the H.P. Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules 1994.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 3: “3. That the contents of para 3 are admitted to the extent that ear-market residential accommodation was occupied by applicant while he was functioning as Executive Engineer in Parwanoo Division of the Board. During the month of April, 2001 he was transferred from Parwanoo to Dharamsala and he relinquished charge of Parwanoo Division on 23.4.2001 and assumed the charge as Executive Engineer, Dharamsala Division on 3.5.2001. As per Rule-10(c)(vii) ear-marked accommodation was to be vacated by him within one month from the date of relinquishing the charge of Parwanoo Division. But he retained the accommodation beyond the concessional period i.e. upto 28.3.2002. Rest of the contents of this para are wrong and denied. It is specifically denied that the act of the respondent is wholly illegal, un- constitutional, arbitrary, un-warranted and un- sustainable in the eyes of law. In fact there is a provision to retain the residential accommodation beyond the concessional period if the Officer/Official is transferred during the mid-academic session whereas the applicant was not transferred during the mid-academic session. Besides this general rule is applicable only for general pool accommodation not for ear-market accommodation. Hence his request to retain the ear-marked accommodation beyond the concessional period could not be acceded to and he is liable to pay the penal rent for the period 22.5.2001 to 28.3.2002 as also decided by the Board of Director in its meeting held on 8.5.2003.” 3. Rejoinder refuting the above stand on behalf of the respondents and reiterating the averments setup in the petition has been filed. 4. In view of the above reply, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, he may certainly point out the same before respondent No. 1 by way of detailed representation supported by documents, if any, alongwith copy of this judgment within a month from the ...3... date of receipt of copy of the judgment, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within further three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending CMP(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 23rd November, 2011 (virender)