IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9015 of 2009 Date of decision: 09.02.2010 Vinas ....Petitioner versus The Union Territory of Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. H.S.Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner sought for relief against dispossession of the House No.2468, Sector 24, Chandigarh on the ground that the petitioner is daughter-in-law of the previous allottee Shanti Devi and after her death on 27.06.1997, she continues to reside in the same residence, as a member of the family attending to son of the deceased, who is mentally ill and daughter of the deceased, who is polio afflicted. The counsel for the petitioner pleads that the action taken for possession of the property by the Administration is unjust, for, she cannot be treated as a stranger in the special circumstances where the immediate son and daughter of the deceased person have to be taken care of and the petitioner herself is a government servant employed in the High Court and therefore, she would require favourable consideration for retaining possession of the property. Civil Writ Petition No.9015 of 2009 - 2 - 2. The contention in defence on behalf of the Administration is that the rules of allotment in respect of Government Servants are governed by Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996, which provide, inter alia, in Rule 13 that an allottee shall have a right of residence upto a period not exceeding 4 months from the date of retirement. Shanti Devi, who had been working as Sweepress in the office of the Executive Engineer, retired from service on 31.05.1997 and even within a period of 4 months, she had died on 27.06.1997. It was not possible to allow for continuance of possession either the son or the daughter or even the daughter-in-law after the right of holding possession ceased after her retirement and the death ensuing within a period of 4 months. I do not find the petitioner as having any right to hold to possession and a plea for a commiserate consideration that she is tending to a mentally ill son of the allottee and polio afflicted daughter of the allottee, cannot afford to the petitioner a right to resist action for possession, so long as the rules govern the issue as to how the allotment shall be done and what type of possession could be protected. There can be no justice beyond what the rules provide for. The petitioner shall have any relief before this Court on the facts disclosed and the petition ought to fail. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.02.2010. sanjeev