RANVIR SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working in the Department of Archaeology & Museums, Haryana, Panchkula, (now retired), has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 14.5.2014 (Annexure P-5), vide which penal rent was imposed on him and order dated 27.5.2014 (Annexure P-6) vide which allotment of government house in his favour, was cancelled.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while posted at Panchkula in the Department of Archaeology & Museums, Haryana, the petitioner was allotted House No. 2202-A, Sector-27, Chandigarh. Vide order dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was transferred as Registering Officer, Department of Archaeology & Museums, Haryana, Hisar with effect from 1.11.2009. However, his headquarter was temporarily fixed for four months in the Directorate of Archaeology & Museums, Haryana, Panchkula. He was to look after the work of Registering Office, Hisar. The aforesaid arrangement of the petitioner being allowed to work at Panchkula continued till further orders, vide order dated 29.7.2010. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2013. Thereafter, he was re-employed by the department for a period of one year from 1.9.2013 till 31.8.2014, on his last drawn salary (minus pension), as a result, the petitioner continued in possession of the accommodation in question at Chandigarh. He vacated the same immediately after term of reemployment expired.

(3.) While referring to an order passed in CWP No. 9013 of 2011 Naubar Chand vs The Union Territory, Chandigarh and another decided on 14.5.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the substantive place of posting of the petitioner was at Chandigarh, the allotment of government house to him could not be cancelled and as a consequence, demand of penal rent could not be raised.