PARDEEP SAKLANI Vs. U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) The father of the petitioner passed away on 26.7.2003 whilst in service. Consequently on 22.7.2004 the petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate grounds. He joined on 28.7.2004. Immediately, after joining, he made an application for transfer of the Government Accommodation that had been allotted to his father. After having obtained an invaluable advantage in securing the job under the exception popularly known as Appointment on Compassionate Grounds", the petitioner now claims that he should be bestowed with a further advantage of residential accommodation on out of turn basis. For this purpose, the petitioner submitted a representation. However, his claim has been rejected by the respondents by order dated 27.4.2005 (Annexure P-4). Thereafter the respondents have passed order dated 5.5.2005 (Annexure P-5). The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner and cancelled the accommodation which had been allotted to his deceased father, in view of the Government Residences (Chandigarh Administration General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1996. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to retain the aforesaid accommodation and he has been wrongly asked to vacate the premises on the ground that he has occupied the same for a period of more than one year. Mr. Bal submits that even this rule has been amended and the petitioner is entitled to keep the accommodation for a period of two years under the Rules.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Given the tremendous misery caused, by the shortage of accommodation to the government servants and the general population, it would be wholly inadvisable to recommend that the authorities should make any deviation from the ruses. They have to strictly adhere to rules and the persons occupying the accommodation beyond the permissible period under the Rules ought to be evicted without being influenced by any misplaced humanitarian considerations. Every time an employee is permitted to continue in government accommodation beyond the permissible period, it infringes on the valuable rights of those, who have been waiting in queue for years on end. In this case, the petitioner has already taken advantage of securing employment, out of turn, on the basis of compassion. He now wishes the same to be compounded by allotment of government accommodation out of turn. In our opinion, the claim made by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. We find that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. Dismissed.