CWP No.9912 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 16.12.2010 Mahabir Sharma ...Petitioner VERSUS Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.R.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent no.3 Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. The petitioner was employee of respondent no.3-Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Sector 2, Panchkula. His services came to be terminated on 23.11.2000 by respondent no.3 on account of participation in mass pen down strike called by Haryana Government Employees Union. The petitioner while in service had applied for allotment of a government house. The Government House No.1795A/ Sector 43A, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 7.1.2003. It is admitted CWP No.9912 of 2010 2 case of the parties that the petitioner took over the possession of the house on 20.1.2003. Termination of the petitioner was, however, revoked and he was ordered to be reinstated in service vide letter dated 11.2.2004. He rejoined the duty on the same date. It is also admitted case of the parties that at the time of allotment of the house and taking over the possession by the petitioner, he was out of service. On coming to know this fact, respondents-House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh cancelled the house allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 9.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) and started making correspondence with the department of the petitioner i.e. respondent no.3 for taking over the possession of the house. The possession of the house was, however, taken over on 9.3.2003. Respondents-House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh have decided to charge penal rent from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.3503/- per month for the period after cancellation i.e. w.e.f. 1.5.2003 upto 31.10.2003. Respondents have placed on record Annexure R2/I which is a communication from respondent no.3 to respondent no.1 giving information about dismissal of the petitioner from service of respondent no.3. Annexure R2/II is an order of respondent no.1 regarding cancellation of the house allotted to the petitioner whereas Annexures R2/III and R2/IV are the orders passed by the Assistant Controller (F&A) Rents, Chandigarh Administration for recovery of the amount of penal and normal rent. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.10,000/- vide order dated 28.5.2010 passed by this Court. The petitioner has already deposited this amount. It is admitted case of the parties that at the time of allotment of the house, the petitioner was out of CWP No.9912 of 2010 3 service. He came to be reinstated on 11.2.2004. The petitioner could never occupy the house on account of dismissal from service. There seems to be some communications between the House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh and the respondent no.3 which seems to have created the situation where under neither the petitioner could utilize the house nor the respondents could allot the same to somebody else. The stand of the respondents is that the address of the petitioner was not known. Therefore, respondents no.1 and 2 were having communication with the office of respondent no.3 and the communications were also addressed at the house allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically mentioned that he never occupied the house which fact is not disputed by the respondents. Under the totality of the circumstances, it is not appropriate to allow the respondents-House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh to charge penal rent from the petitioner. However, since the petitioner had kept the house locked, the petitioner is liable to pay at least normal rent, payable under the rules, particularly when has been reinstated in service. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 8.4.2009 and 8.2.2010 (Annexures P-3 and P-7, respectively) asking recovery from the petitioner are hereby quashed. However, the respondents are directed to re-calculate the normal licence fee/rent and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month. If the amount deposited by him i.e. Rs.10,000/- is more than the normal rent payable by the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted against demanded amount payable by the petitioner and the rest shall be refunded to him. However, in the event the rent payable by the petitioner is more than the amount deposited by the petitioner, the balance amount payable by the petitioner CWP No.9912 of 2010 4 shall be communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner shall deposit the same within 15 days from the date of communication by respondents no.1 and 2, failing which the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 5