GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, dismissing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment dated 08.08.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, dismissing his suit for declaration for setting aside the order No. 9680 dated 22.08.2003 with regard to deduction of the penal rent to the tune of Rs. 1,66,030/- and not to deduct the penal rent from his retrial benefits.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff was employed with the Punjab Police and was posted at Bathinda and he was allotted Quarter No. H-70 by the House Allotment Committee, Bathinda. In October 1995, he was transferred to Sangrur and on 06.10.1995, he joined his duties at Sangrur. On transfer, he vacated the house in question within the stipulated period of two months from the date of his transfer. Thereafter, he never stayed in the said house. On 15.07.1996, he was transferred to 36 Battalion P.A.P. Bahadurgarh from Sangrur, but he could not join his duties up to 16.05.1997 due to ill health. As such, this period of his absence was treated as leave period. Thereafter, defendant-respondent No. 5 issued notice No. 2375 dated 06.08.1998 and defendant-respondent No. 3 issued order No. 13428 dated 18.09.1998 for recovery of Rs. 1,66,030/- on account of his overstay in the Government Accommodation at Bathinda after his transfer, alleging that he had not vacated the said house within a stipulated period of two months from the date of his transfer. The said notice as well as order for recovery was challenged by him before the Civil Court at Bathinda and the suit was decided in his favour. The appeal filed by the State Government was dismissed on 01.02.2003. However, thereafter, the defendants passed an order No. 9680 dated 22.08.2003 for recovery of Rs. 1,66,030/- from the pensionary benefits of the plaintiff. On account of non-payment of this penal rent, the defendants also withheld all his retrial and pensionary benefits such as GPF, gratuity, pension etc. Even according to the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, the recovery could be effected only after issuing due notice to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff challenged the said notice being illegal and void.

(3.) The defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants') contested the suit by filing written statement, wherein it was alleged that the plaintiff overstayed in the quarter in question after stipulated period from the date of his transfer and handed over the possession of the said quarter to the concerned authority on 31.07.1998. It was further alleged that the competent authority after issuing recovery notice dated 21.08.2003 for recovery of Rs. 1,66,030/- upon the plaintiff and after due compliance of the directions as envisaged vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, the recovery of penal rent was imposed and further ordered to deduct the same from the retrial benefits, consequently, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.