CWP No.17720 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17720 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.11.2011 Peyush Chopra son of Late Shri K.K. Chopra, resident of H.No.1535, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh. ... Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh through its Home Secretary and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Tarundeep S. Khaira, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the order issued by the 2nd respondent under the terms of which a claim for retention of the allotment of the property was refused. The petitioner's claim was on the basis of that on the death of the original allottee, he had been granted compassionate appointment in the capacity as a legal heir of the deceased employee and that he should be allowed to retain the allotment already made to his father. The rules dictated that such a claim could be done if, a compassionate appointment is made within a CWP No.17720 of 2010 [2] period of 2 years. In this case, the petitioner obtained a compassionate appointment beyond the period of 2 years and this was taken to be the ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's grievance that there had been no delay on his part and if arose any delay in securing the appointment to the post, which he was entitled as per the scheme, he should not be denied the benefit of the provisions for allowing for retention of the property. The counsel for the respondents is fair to submit that in yet another case “Ramesh Kumari vs. Union” in CWP No.7367-CAT of 2007, this High Court allowed for relaxation of the condition and directed the allotment. The petitioner shall have a similar relief as already obtained by yet another person in the case referred to above. 3. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. The excess of rent collected over the normal liability after the allotment, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the amount shall bear simple interest @ 6% per annum. NOVEMBER 29, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE