ASHA SHARMA Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the issue of retention of House No. 55, Sector 5, Chandigarh by the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after her retirement from Indian Administrative Services on 29.02.2007, the petitioner was appointed as State Information Commissioner on 03.01.2008 and soon thereafter she applied for the allotment of a house/regularization of the accommodation already in her possession on 14.01.2008. He fairly submits that if the respondents consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of an alternative government house which the petitioner is entitled to as on date, she would have no objection to vacating the house in her occupation. Mr. Kaushal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. Administration, on instructions from Ms. Hargunjit Kaur, Assistant Estate Officer who is present in Court, does not dispute the petitioner's entitlement for allotment of a government house as on today, though it may not be the Type-V house.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner states that no sooner did the respondents consider the petitioner's claim for an alternative accommodation as per her entitlement than the petitioner undertakes to vacate the house in dispute.