IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.4350 of 2008 (OA No.982 of 1997) Date of Decision: 18th May, 2009 R.L.Kaushal Petitioner Versus H.P.State Electricity Board Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms.Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner was serving as Assistant Executive Engineer at Nurpur when in terms of order dated 18.4.1991 he was transferred to Electrical Sub Division, Larji, where he joined on 26.8.1991. Petitioner, however, continued to retain the government accommodation allotted to him for the reason that his children were studying in the school at Nurpur and two of his children were studying in the 11th and 12th standard. Petitioner’s representation dated 7.9.1991 (Annexure A-3) of allowing him to retain the accommodation was responded by the Board and the petitioner was asked to furnish the exact period for which the accommodation was required to be retained by him. In terms of letter dated 5.12.1991 (Annexure A-6), petitioner clarified that he would be requiring Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 the accommodation from 18.6.1991 upto 30.6.1992. Petitioner vide another letter dated 7.4.1992 (Annexure A-7) again requested the Board to take a decision on his request. Instead of deciding the petitioner’s representation or communicating any decision to him vide letter dated 1.4.1992 (Annexure A-8) the Executive Engineer, Jassore, asked the Chief Accounts Officer, Kumar House, HPSEB, Shimla, to recover a sum of Rs.39,229/- being penal rent @ Rs.3772/- per month, charges for the accommodation which the petitioner had retained. Petitioner immediately responded to the same, but, however, petitioner’s request was turned down vide respondent’s letter dated 5.1.1993 (Annexure A-10). Petitioner also vacated the government accommodation on 30.4.1992 and requested for waiver of penal rent which request, however, did not find favour with the respondent as is evident from the letter dated 15.1.1993 issued by Superintending Engineer, Dalhousie to the Chief Accounts Officer, Shimla. Subsequent requests of the petitioner met with the same fate. Consequently, petitioner filed the present petition and on 13.5.1997, the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal while admitting the petition directed that no recovery be effected from the applicant till further orders. The said order is in operation till date. There is no doubt that government employee cannot occupy government accommodation beyond a period for which he is otherwise authorised to do so, but, however, it is equally true that the government/respondent-Board has framed Rules and Regulations wherein the Board has been exercising its discretionary powers in allowing the 3 employee, for justifiable reasons, to occupy the premises beyond the normal period of allotment. In none of the communications, reason for rejection of the petitioner’s prayer has been assigned by the respondent-Board. Petitioner’s family was staying along with him at the aforesaid allotted accommodation and in fact petitioner over-stayed between 19.6.1991 to 30.4.1992 only for the reason that his two children were to undertake Board examination of 11th and 12th standard at that time. The respondent-Board in the case of one Shri R.K.Korla, Executive Engineer, also posted at Jassore, allowed him to occupy the residential accommodation allotted to him at Baijnath at the payment of twice the standard rent. While admitting the said fact the respondent has not explained as to why the petitioner was discriminated and same order passed in the instant case. The respondent-Board has placed on record Allotment of Government Residences (General Pool) in Himachal Pradesh Rules, 1986 as applicable to the respondent-Board. Rule 18 specifically empowers the Board to allow its employee to retain a residence on payment of twice the standard rent for a period not exceeding six months. The ground explained by the petitioner required favourable consideration. Hence, Annexures A-8 and A-12 are quashed with a direction that for a period of six months starting from 19.6.1991 the respondent shall charge from the petitioner twice the standard rent and for the remaining period the petitioner shall have to pay the penal rent. It is admitted case that certain amount already stands deducted by the respondent. The respondent-Board is directed to reconcile 4 the account and furnish the exact account statement to the petitioner. It is clarified that if the amount is due and payable by either of the parties, the same shall be released/paid within a period of three weeks from the date of reconciliation of account. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of. 18th May, 2009 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.