KULBIR SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kulbir Singh Gill through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order of allotment of House No. 1401-A and 1402-B, Type IV Sector 37, Chandigarh, dated February 9, 1992, to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In the wake of grant of relief aforesaid, the obvious further prayer of petitioner is that one of the houses mentioned above, be allotted to him.

(2.) It is not disputed that petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are all employees of Punjab Mandi Board. The sole case of petitioner is that in accordance with the Rules governing allotment of house, a person who is in better pay range would have precedence over others in the matter of allotment of houses. Before the matter is proceeded any further, it require to be mentioned that the claim of the petitioner was against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 but during the course of arguments comparison is done between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 only. It is pleaded that even though Smt. Gurdish Kaur, respondent No. 4 applied earlier in point of time but on the date when she applied, she was not even eligible for allotment of house as she did not come in the pay range which could entitle her to the allotment of type IV house.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, I am of the opinion that the solitary point raised by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner has no substance and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. The1 word "pay scale" has been loosely mentioned and infact and reality what is meant by the pay range is the pay scale as would be evident from Annexure P-2 itself. Admittedly, the pay scale of respondent No. 4 was revised on 1.3.1989. Whereas, it is the positive case of the petitioner that his basic pay was Rs. 2350/-, the respondents also emphatically assert that it was not so but it was Rs. 2520/-. The stand taken by respondent No. 4 has also been authenticated by respondent Punjab Mandi Board. The only question that survives for adjudication is as to whether respondent No. 4 was eligible on the date when she applied i.e. 5.10.1989. Assuming that she was not entitled to the allotment of Type IV house when she made the application but the fact remains that she was actually allotted house when her pay scales had since already been revised. It cannot be said that her application that was filed on 5.10.1989 can not be construed to have been filed on the date when she became eligible on account of revision of pay scales as she was getting better basic pay than that of petitioner. I do not find any infirmity with the allotment made to respondent No. 4. 4. For the reasor mentioned above, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.