VISHAN LAL THAKUR Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vishan Lal Thakur (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') by means of this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the orders Annexure P-2 and P-3.

(2.) The petitioner was employed in the Punjab University, Chandigarh from where he retired on 31st December, 1979. While in the employment of the Panjab University-respondent No. 1 he had been allotted quarter No. C-36, Sector 14. After his retirement he applied to the University for allotment of the same house to his son, who had been residing with him and was also employed with the University. His representation was rejected and he was informed of this fact vide notice dated 24th June, 1981 and therein he was also directed to vacate the premises. The petitioner approached the House Allotment Committee, but in the meantime he received another notice from the Estate Officer asking him to vacate the premises and in case of default he was to pay penal rent at the rate of Rs. 500/-. In view of this notice the petitioner vacated the premises on 31st August, 1981 and he contested and claim of the University for praying damages as claimed in the notice. Vide order Annexure P-2 the Estate Officer determined the damages at the rate of Rs. 250/- p.m. with effect from 1st March, 1980 to 31st August, 1981. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Chandigarh, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the Punjab Premises Act, 1971, which was dismissed vide judgment Annexure P-3.

(3.) The petitioner challenges these orders on the ground that since it was only on 24th June, 1981 that he was informed of the rejection of his representation thus Respondent No. 1 was estopped from claiming damages by its act and conduct. That it were only the Vice Chancellor and the House Allotment Committee who were entitled to order his ejectment and no authority was competent to pass such orders. That another ground is that the allotment had been made in favour of the sons and daughters of the retiring employees and that there was no basis for making claim of the damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- or Rs. 250/- as ordered subsequently.