PARMA NAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Tehsildar, Arki. He was transferred from Arki to Nalagarh, where he joined his duties on 03.08.2001. He was allotted Government accommodation. He moved an application for permission to retain the Government accommodation till the end of academic session, i.e., 30th April, 2002. He has categorically undertaken in his application dated 28.11.2001 that he will vacate the Government accommodation immediately after the academic session was over. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan has sought certain clarifications from the F.C. -Cum -Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh. The F.C. -Cum -Secretary (Revenue), Government of Himachal Pradesh informed the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, District Solan that the case of the Petitioner was covered under proviso -III, below explanation -4 of 10(2) of H.P. Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules, 1994. Petitioner was bound to pay double the normal licence fee after production of certificate from the concerned institutions with regard to academic year. On 21st June, 2002, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Nalagarh informed the Tehsildar -Cum -Estate Officer, Arki that as per the decision of F.C. -Cum -Secretary (Revenue), H.P., the licence fee will be charged double of the normal from the Petitioner. He was also informed that Petitioner has not been allotted Government accommodation in this Sub -Division. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and was transferred back to Arki. However, fact of the matter is that the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled vide office order dated 25.09.2003. He was directed to vacate the accommodation within a period of ten days from the date of passing of the order. Petitioner filed a review application on 08.10.2003. The same was rejected by the competent authority on 01.01.2004.

(2.) MR . Ashwani Pathak, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously argued that the office orders dated 25.09.2003 and 01.01.2004 are illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.