R K SHARMA Vs. U T , CHD ADMN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Assistant serving on the establishment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. By approaching this Court on the judicial side, he had prayed for the quashing of letter dated 25.8.1986 (Annexure P-8), by which the sanction of the House Building Advance, according to the existing pay of the petitioner has not been granted by respondents No. 1 and 3, that is, the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and its Home Secretary. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Chandigarh Administration, respondent No. 1, to release the House Building Advance on the basis of his existing pay in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government of India on 7.4.1984 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) The petitioner applied for loan for the purchase of plot in the Urban Estate, Panchkula (District Ambala). He was paid a sum of Rs. 5,475/- on 1.11.1977, that is, 1/5th of the total amount of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 27,357/-. On the very next day, that is, on 2.11.1977, a residential plot was allotted to the petitioner at Panchkula. Since possession of the plot was not delivered to the petitioner and the construction could not be started in time, the amount of loan of Rs. 5,475/- which had been paid to the petitioner, was recovered from him by the respondents. In the meantime, the pay scale of the post of the petitioner was revised and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner along with other employees, represented to the respondents for the grant of House Building Advance on the basis of the revised pay scale. The request was, however, declined on 20.7.1982, intimating that "such employees who have been sanctioned House Building Advance for the purchase of plot will be entitled to House Building Advance for the construction of house on the basis of salary drawn by them at the time of grant of House Building Loan for purchase of plot". Thereafter, the Government of India, keeping in view the rise in the cost of construction and other relevant factors, reviewed the entire matter, liberalising the terms and conditions of the House Building Advance and issued fresh instructions of 7.4.1984 (Annexure P-5). According to the revised decision regarding the quantum of House Building Advance "the existing maximum limit of House Building Advance (HBA) viz. 75 months" pay of the employee or Rs. 70,000/- whichever is less, will be raised to 100 months pay or Rs. 1.25 lakhs whichever is less, for construction/acquisition of a house". According to para VIII of this letter, regarding the date of effect of the orders, the decision read as under :-

(3.) Though the Punjab and Haryana High Court, respondent No. 2, on the administrative side, recommended the case of the petitioner to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 for the grant of necessary House Building Advance, yet the same was not granted to him. Not returns has been filed by the High Court and the case has been contested by respondents No. 1 and 3. In the written-statement filed by these respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioner could not be granted the House Building Advance in accordance with the instructions of the Government of India (Annexure P-5), as loan for the purchase of plot had already been calculated and given to the petitioner on the basis of his salary drawn by him at the time of sanction of the loan for the purchase of plot. Therefore, according to the respondents, the amount of loan for the construction of a house had already been calculated, by deducting amount of loan given for the purchase of plot from the total admissible loan, and that the liberalisation policy of the government of India dated 7.4.1984. (Annexure P-5), was applicable to the petitioner only to the extent that the petitioner could get 50 per cent more than the loan calculated on the basis of pay at the time of purchase of plot.