SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Plaintiffs second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby while accepting the appeal filed by the Respondent-State of Haryana, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant by the trial Court was set aside and suit of the Appellant for declaration challenging the action of Respondent No. 2 charging penal rent after 19.04.2006 being illegal with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Respondents from taking the penal rent from his salary, was dismissed.

(2.) As per the averments made in the suit, Appellant was appointed as Carpenter Instructor in Industrial Training Institute, Karnal on 12.03.1996 and continued on the Post, as such. He was entitled to government accommodation and was allotted House No. 15, ITI Colony, Karnal by Respondent No. 2 vide memo No. 4019 dated 25.06.2004. Appellant was transferred to ITI Ballah on 09.09.2005 and was relieved from his duties from Karnal on 10.10.2005. Appellant sought permission to retain the government house till holding of examination of his children. The Appellant was given the said permission for a period up to 10.02.2006. Respondent No. 2 directed the Appellant on 08.02.2006 to either vacate the house on 10.02.2006 or pay the penal rent. It is the further case of the Appellant that he was again transferred to Karnal on 17.04.2006 whereupon he joined at Karnal on 19.04.2006. Thereafter, Appellant requested Respondent No. 2 not to charge penal rent w.e.f. 19.04.2009 but Respondent No. 2 was bent upon to eject the Appellant from the house and deduct the penal rent from his salary. Thus, the action of the Respondents was challenged by way of present suit by the Appellant.

(3.) Upon notice, the suit was contested by the Respondents raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that the house in question was allotted to the Appellant on 25.06.2004. However, the said allotment was cancelled on 10.02.2006 when he failed to vacate the same. It was further stated that Appellant was granted permission to retain the house up to 10.02.2006 and on expiry of the said period, the allotment was treated to be cancelled. It was further stated that once Appellant remained posted outside Karnal, he lost his seniority for the purpose of allotment of house. In spite of his own application dated 09.05.2006, to vacate the house up to 11.05.2006, Appellant failed to do so. The Appellant was bound to vacate the house as per rules and there was no question of forcible ejection. The penal rent was being charged as per rules. Rest of the contents of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.