PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *** Civil Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2009. Date of Decision: January 10, 2011. *** Amar Parkash Khurana Vs. U.T.Chandigarh and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Acting Chief Justice; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine Goeroge Masih. *** Present: Shri N.D.Achint, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri H.S.Sethi, Standing counsel for U.T.Chandigarh. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Advocate, for Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. *** Ranjan Gogoi , ACJ (Oral) The petitioner who is a retired employee has challenged the vires of Rule 12(b) of the Government Residential (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ''Rules 1996''), under which an employee who is allotted accommodation of a higher category than the one in his occupation and who does not accept such accommodation allotted to him, is liable to pay licence fee at the rate applicable to such higher category. The petitioner while in service had submitted an application in the year 2004 for allotment of a house of the category to which he was entitled to. At that point of time he was in occupation of an accommodation below his entitlement. The higher accommodation was made available to him. However, the petitioner declined to accept the same. At the time of his retirement, the balance of the licence fee amounting to Rs. 15,000/- was got deposited from him before issuing the ''No Due'', certificate. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that in the -2- CWP No. 1801 of 2009 present case, it will not be necessary to go into the validity of the Rule 12 (b) of the Rules 1996. Admittedly, the petitioner is a retired employee. If any amount was due from him it was due in the year 2004 and should have been recovered from him at that time or from the monthly salary of the petitioner while he was in service. This was not so done. Instead, at the time of his retirement, on the pain of with-holding the ''No Due'' certificate, the same was recovered. The time and the manner in which the recovery was made along with the amount involved and the fact that the petitioner is a retired employee lead us to the conclusion that it would be just and proper to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs. 15,000/- recovered from the petitioner without any interest. The said amount will be returned to the petitioner within a period of two months from today. However, it is made clear that the above order has been passed in the peculiar facts of this case and will not operate as a precedent. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (Ranjan Gogoi) Acting Chief Justice (Augustine Goerge Masih) Judge January 10, 2011 Malik