HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.20858 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.06.2010 **** Dilbagh Singh Berwal . . . . Petitioner VS. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG Haryana for respondent No.3 Mr. JR Syal, Advocate for respondent No.4 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 08.03.2007, 07.01.2008 and 20.03.2008 (Annexure P7, P13 & P14, respectively) passed by the Chandigarh Administration and its authorities vide which the petitioner has been directed to pay the telephone bills used in the office for the period from August,1994 to March, 1999. CWP No.20858 of 2008.doc (2). The petitioner, who is a Haryana Government employee, while working as Manager in the Haryana Government Text Books Press at Panchkula, was taken on deputation by the Chandigarh Administration as Deputy Controller (Printing) in the office of Controller, Printing and Stationery Department, UT Chandigarh. He served in that capacity w.e.f. 1st August, 1994 till 6th December, 1999. (3). A telephone bearing No.41176 (old) and 549353 (new), was installed in the office of the petitioner. The controversy pertains to the non-payment of the telephone bills for using the said telephone during the period when the petitioner was on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration. (4). While the petitioner’s contention is that the monthly rental as well as the charges towards permissible calls are also being sought to be recovered from him, counsel for the UT Chandigarh Administration denies the same and contends that only the charges towards private calls made by the petitioner from that telephone number are sought to be recovered. 2 - CWP No.20858 of 2008.doc (5). Since the breakup of the demand of Rs.1,20,000/- has not been given by the respondent- Administration, it is difficult to hold as to whether or not the petitioner has been charged the monthly rental permissible to the official calls? (6). In these circumstances and as agreed to by the counsel for the UT Chandigarh Administration, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Chandigarh Administration shall furnish the break-up details of the total demand of Rs.1,20,000/- and upon receipt thereof, the petitioner shall deposit the charges towards the private calls made by him, within a period of two months. (7). It is made clear that the amount which has already been deposited by the petitioner towards private calls, shall be adjusted against the total bill sought to be recovered from the petitioner. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 30.06.2010 vishal shonkar 3 - CWP No.20858 of 2008.doc 4 -