PADAM MENON Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that on a request made by the appellant for allotment of a plot on the ground that he is a practising advocate and a part time legal adviser to the Amritsar Improvement Trust and that he or his wife or dependant children do not own any other building or site, the Amritsar Improvement Trust vide Resolution No. 306 dated 29th November, 1979 decided to allot plot No. A/105 measuring 250 sq. yards in Ajnala Road Area Development Schema to him subject to the approval of the Government. The appellant had applied for allotment of a plot in his capacity as belonging to the special category, of 'professional' as per instructions issued by the Government under Rule 7b of the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trusts Rules, 1975. After the Resolution was passed by the Trust on 29.11.1979, his case was forwarded to the Government by Chairman of the Amritsar Improvement Trust through Regional Deputy Director, Local Bodies. The Government, however, vide Memo dated 7.10.1980 disapproved the proposal of the Trust. The appellant was intimated about the disapproval by the Government and in the meantime, plot No. A/105 was recommended for allotment to one Shri Pragat Singh. The recommendation for allotment of plot to Shri Pragat Singh was also rejected by the Government, which led to Shri Pragat Singh filing a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was allowed and his case was forwarded to the Government for reconsideration whereafter plot No. A/ 105 was allotted in favour of Shri Pragat Singh. Thus, plot No. A/105 is not available for allotment to the appellant.

(3.) From a perusal of the record, we find that the disapproval by the Government of Punjab to the allotment of plot to the appellant was based on the ground that the appellant being a part time legal adviser to the Amritsar Improvement Trust, did not fall within the category of "Employees of the Improvement Trust", which category had been added vide Notification dated 30th June, 1976 (Annexure P-1 in this paper book) and, thus, was not entitled to allotment of the plot against that category. The ease of the appellant, however, was that he was covered by category 14 (Professionals) provided in Notification No. 9(M)-102-76/ 41321 dated 2nd December, 1976 and being a professional, he was entitled to the allotment. This aspect of the case was obviously not considered by the Government. The Chairman of Amritsar Improvement Trust in his communication dated 24th May, 1990 addressed to the Secretary, Local Government Department, Punjab once again reiterated that the appellant though a part time legal adviser to the Trust is "also a practicing advocate, his case came within the ambit of category 14, being a professional", but, despite requests for reconsideration by the Improvement Trust, the Government did not relent. The appellant also addressed a number of letters to the Government for proper consideration of his case, but to no avail. The appellant, thereafter, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed on June 30, 1998. The High Court has noticed that the appellant was an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and a regular practitioner, but went on to opine that since he was engaged by the Trust in 1975 as a part time legal adviser on fixed retainership of Rs. 600/- p.m., he could not be treated "as an employee of the Trust". The High Court apparently overlooked the fact that the appellant was claiming allotment on the ground that he was a professional, and was covered in category 14. Aggrieved appellant is before us in this appeal by special leave.