SATBIR SINGH GORIPURIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a practising Advocate in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh when he was appointed Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, vide order dated 10.7.1991. In pursuance of this offer, he joined his office on 12.7.1991. At the time of his appointment, the petitioner was living in House No. 3288, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- and having been asked to vacate the said house, he shifted to House No. 1096, Sector 21-B paying a monthly rent of Rs. 3500/-. He, thereafter, lived in House No. 2048, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh on a monthly rent of Rs. 3600/- and as on the date of filing of this petition, he was residing therein. As per the policy decision taken by the State Government, those officers who had been appointed on tenure/temporary posts such as Deputy Advocates General/Assistant Advocates General and had no chance of getting government accommodation were permitted to hire private residential accommodation in lieu of house rent allowance to a ceiling of Rs. 3000/- p.m. but it was further provided that this benefit of Rs. 3000/- p.m. was to be given to only those law officers (AAG/DAG) who had come from outside Chandigarh to join their posts and not to those who had been appointed as Law Officers while practising in the High Court. The petitioner has also put on record Annexures P-2 and P-3 which do indicate that some officers had been given the benefit aforesaid. The petitioner filed a detailed representation on 27.9.1994 claiming that as he owned no residential property in Chandigarh, he too was entitled to this benefit but the same was rejected vide Annexure P-4 dated 16th November, 1994. This order has been impugned in the present proceedings.

(2.) On notice of motion having been issued in this case, a reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government. A copy of the Policy decision has not been appended either with the writ petition or reply but in para 4 of the reply, it has been submitted as under :-

(3.) Mr. R.K. Malik, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there was absolutely no justification for making a discrimination between the petitioner who had been appointed as AAG while practising in Chandigarh and the other Law Officers who had been appointed from outside Chandigarh with regard to the payment of Rs. 3000/- p.m. for the purpose of hiring private residential accommodation and the denial of this benefit to the petitioner was wholly without reason and arbitrary.