AMRIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired on 30.6.1996 as the Medical Superintendent of the Mata Kaushalya Hospital, Patiala. While in service the petitioner had been allotted Kothi No. 26-C within the hospital premises as an earmarked accommodation for the Medical Superintendent. The petitioner who was building a house for himself at Nabha in the meanwhile did not vacate the official accommodation within two months as provided by Rule 10 of the Punjab Government House (General Pool) Allotment Rules, 1983 (hereinafter called the Rules) and in this connection made an application dated 18.12.1996 Annexure P-1 to the petition and thereafter on 19.1.1997 to respondent No. 2 for permission to retain the house on nominal rent for a period of four months. The petitioner, however, received no reply to these representations. The petitioner nevertheless vacated the Government accommodation on 2.3.1997. He then received a communication dated 28.4.1997 Annexure P-4 to the petition that his gratuity was being released on him after making a deduction of an amount of Rs. 66,834/- as the rent chargeable against the petitioner for having remained in possession of the Government accommodation. This action has been challenged by the petitioner in this Court by filing this writ petition.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case and the respondents have filed various replies in response thereto. It has been pleaded that the sum deducted from the petitioner's gratuity had been rightly deducted, more particularly as the representation Annexure P-1 had been rejected and vide Annexure R-2 he had been directed to vacate the Government accommodation but he had continued to hold on to it till 2.3.1997 and as such the Estate Officer PWD (B&R) Patiala had assessed double market rent against the petitioner as having been payable by him from 1.9.96 to 1.3.97. In the reply put in by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 it has been pointed out that the rent had been correctly assessed by the competent authority vide Annexure R-1 after taking into account the relevant data and in this connection reliance has been placed on R-2.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Walia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 9.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II Part I (hereinafter called the Pension Rules) and has pointed out that the withholding of a part of the retiral benefits for a recovery for overstaying in the Govt. accommodation after the permissible period of two months was not permissible. In addition he had relied on Rule 10 of the Pension Rules to contend that under Sub Rules (5) and (6) of Rule 10 the Chairman of the House Allotment Committee could in special circumstances allow the retention of the house beyond the permissible period and by an amendment made on 4.9.94, a similar authority had been conferred on the Govt. and as the petitioner had filed two representations Annexure P-1 and P-2 seeking retention of the accommodation for some time beyond two months no deduction could be made from the petitioner's gratuity.