CWP No.11375 of 1988 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 15.12.2008 Ishwar Chander Jindal ... Petitioner Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others ... Respondents. Present: Mr.DD Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.BR Mahajan, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner is aggrieved of the letter dated 25.04.1987, Annxure P-1, whereby an amount of Rs.500/- per month was ordered to charged from him on account of the mesne profits with effect from 01.08.1987 on the allegations that the petitioner who was allotted staff quarter, as Development Officer, at Chandigarh, was transferred to Panckhula Branch office under Karnal Divisional Office, was required to vacate the staff quarter and hand-over the peaceful possession of the same, but he did not vacate the same. On failure of the petitioner to vacate the staff quarter within a period of six months, mesne profits at the rate of Rs.500/- were ordered to recovered from him. It is admitted position that the petitioner did vacate the staff CWP No.11375 of 1988 -2- quarter on 03.06.1988. The petitioner had accordingly challenged order Annexures P-1, P-2, P-6 and P-11. Vide Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-6, the petitioner has been asked to pay the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.500/- per month whereas vide Annexure P-11, representation of the petitioner has been rejected and a recovery of Rs.9378/- has been ordered to be made from his salary. The petitioner has, primarily, based his claim on the question of parity with one Sher Singh who was also transferred to some other place but was allowed to retain the staff quarter. In the reply, it is admitted that Sher Singh was also transferred but he was allowed to retain the staff quarter. However, the respondents have attempted to draw a distinction between the case of the petitioner and that of Sher Singh on the ground that Sher Singh was living at the upper floor of the house where accommodation was available. It is further stated that Sher Singh made a representation for retention of the accommodation which was available and his request was accepted by the authorities. From the reply, it appears that the distinction sought to be drawn in the case of the petitioner and that of Sher Singh, is artificial and illusionary. The petitioner also requested for the retention of the staff quarter, but the same was rejected and recovery is sought to be made from him. The respondents cannot be permitted to adopt the different yard sticks for the employees of the same organisation. The orders impugned are, thus, discriminatory in nature and are not CWP No.11375 of 1988 -3- sustainable. The petitioner has already vacated the staff quarter, though belatedly. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-2, P-6 and P-11 are hereby quashed. No costs. 15.12.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO