RSA No.2663 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2663 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:13.08.2010 Satish Kumar .... appellant Versus State of Haryana & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Arvind Singh,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgement and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent-State of Haryana, the judgement and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant by the trial Court was set aside and suit of the appellant for declaration challenging the action of respondent No.2 charging penal rent after 19.04.2006 being illegal with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from taking the penal rent from his salary, was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, appellant was appointed as Carpenter Instructor in Industrial Training Institute, Karnal on 12.03.1996 and continued on the Post, as such. He was entitled to government accommodation and was allotted House No.15, ITI Colony, Karnal by respondent No.2 vide memo No.4019 dated 25.06.2004. Appellant was transferred to ITI Ballah on 09.09.2005 and was relieved from his duties from Karnal on 10.10.2005. Appellant sought permission to RSA No.2663 of 2010(O & M) 2 retain the government house till holding of examination of his children. The appellant was given the said permission for a period up to 10.02.2006. Respondent No.2 directed the appellant on 08.02.2006 to either vacate the house on 10.02.2006 or pay the penal rent. It is the further case of the appellant that he was again transferred to Karnal on 17.04.2006 whereupon he joined at Karnal on 19.04.2006. Thereafter, appellant requested respondent No.2 not to charge penal rent w.e.f.19.04.2009 but respondent No.2 was bent upon to eject the appellant from the house and deduct the penal rent from his salary. Thus, the action of the respondents was challenged by way of present suit by the appellant. Upon notice, the suit was contested by the respondents raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the house in question was allotted to the appellant on 25.06.2004. However, the said allotment was cancelled on 10.02.2006 when he failed to vacate the same. It was further stated that appellant was granted permission to retain the house up to 10.02.2006 and on expiry of the said period, the allotment was treated to be cancelled. It was further stated that once appellant remained posted outside Karnal, he lost his seniority for the purpose of allotment of house. In spite of his own application dated 09.05.2006, to vacate the house up to 11.05.2006, appellant failed to do so. The appellant was bound to vacate the house as per rules and there was no question of forcible ejection. The penal rent was being charged as per rules. Rest of the contents of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether action of defendant No.2 in charging the penal rent after 19.04.2006 is illegal, void, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff?OPP RSA No.2663 of 2010(O & M) 3 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from deducting penal rent from the salary of the plaintiff for the month of May and onward and from dispossessing the plaintiff from disputed house?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file and maintain the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD 5. Relief. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court held that once the plaintiff joined service at Karnal, the act of defendants-respondents in charging penal rate of interest and being adamant in getting the house vacated, was unreasonable, in view of the fact that in a similar case of one Nirmala Devi, a different approach was adopted. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgement and decree of the trial Court, defendant-respondents filed an appeal, which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgement and decree dated 24.04.2010 holding that after the expiry of the permission on 10.02.2006, the occupation of the appellant became unauthorised and he was supposed to vacate the same as per rules and liable to pay the penal interest. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court also found that if any order was passed by the competent authority with regard to any concession given to any particular employee, it will not become a precedent for all other cases or unauthorised occupation of the government house. The appellant was never authorised to retain the house after 10.02.2006 and was legally bound to surrender the possession. His re- transfer to Karnal does not give him any right to claim possession over the house in dispute. RSA No.2663 of 2010(O & M) 4 Still not satisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: 1. Whether the judgement and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court reversing the decree of trial Court is based on misreading of evidence? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to parity with other employees as per Ex.PW2/D vide which the allotment of a co-employee was regularised after transferring her out and on rejoining like plaintiff? 3. Whether the imposition of 50 times penal house rent is against the policy/instructions of the Government? 4. Whether the employee is entitled to retain a Government accommodation allotted on the basis of his seniority? In support of his appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in identical circumstances, the respondent authorities had allowed other employee to retain house when they were transferred from Karnal and rejoined back and thus the action of the respondents in not treating the appellant at par with other employees as proved by PW2 and therefore judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court was liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgement and decrees of the Courts below. Admittedly, the appellant had no right to continue with the possession of the house in dispute on expiry of permission period on 10.02.2006. It is also not the case of the appellant that under the rules, he was entitled to get the re-allotment without losing his seniority over the house in dispute after his re-transfer to Karnal. The relief is sought only on the ground that in identical circumstances, one Nirmala Devi was not RSA No.2663 of 2010(O & M) 5 charged with the penal rent. It is well settled that no equality can be claimed before law for an illegal act. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the recent case of Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2010(3)RCR Civil 322 has held that even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 13.08.2010 neenu