CWP No.8067 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8067 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.03.2011 **** Bimla Mann . . . . Petitioner VS. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. . . . . 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. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the respondents **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The husband of the petitioner was a Research Assistant in the office of Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana at Chandigarh. He was allotted the Government residential accommodation bearing H.No.13/1155, Sector 19, Chandigarh. The husband of the petitioner went missing on 11.03.2005 and a DDR bearing No.18 dated 18.09.2005 to this effect was got recorded in the Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh. The petitioner along with her son continued to stay in the residential accommodation allotted to her husband. CWP No.8067 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The respondents vide the order dated 04.02.2009 (Annexure P2) cancelled the above-stated allotment of residential house w.e.f. 11.07.2005 and directed the petitioner to vacate and pay the penal rent. The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court explaining that in terms of the Government instructions, though the dependent family members of a missing Government employee are entitled to ‘family pension’ after expiry of a period of one year from the date of such missing but she having been denied the same and there being no other source of survival that she was unable to vacate the Govt. house. (3). The petitioner’s dispossession was stayed by this Court. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the ‘family pension’ and other ex gratia benefits have since been granted to the petitioner and she undertakes to vacate the house within two months. (5). The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that since the petitioner continued to stay in the residential quarter unauthorisedly, she is liable to pay the penal rent. (6). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. CWP No.8067 of 2009.doc - 3 – (7). In my considered view, the petitioner’s stay in the Government residential quarter cannot be termed as a willful violation of the Chandigarh Administration General Pool Rules, 1996 as the petitioner, being victim of the circumstances not attributable to her, could not have gone on roads along with her minor son as admittedly she had no other source of sustenance except the family pension. (8). The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned notices to the extent of imposing penal rent are hereby quashed subject to the petitioner’s above-stated undertaking to vacate the Government quarter in question on or before 31.05.2011. However, the respondents shall be entitled to charge normal rent from the petitioner upto the said period which she shall deposit within two months from the date of demand notice. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge