PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of the petitioner was working as Foreman in the Central Workshop, Haryana at Chandigarh. He was allotted Government house No. 1362-F Type-II in Sector 11, Panchkula as per his entitlement. He died on 16.1.1995 while in service. Petitioner who was living with him was given a compassionate appointment on 7.6.1995 under the ex-gratia scheme as a clerk in the office of the State Transport Commissioner, Haryana at Chandigarh. Since he was given appointment within one year of the death of his father, he filed an application to the House Allotment Committee to either allot him the house he was then occupying or any other alternative house as per his entitlement on compassionate grounds in terms of the Government policy. The request of the petitioner for the allotment of Government accommodation was declined as per letter dated 20.11.1995 and he was informed that in terms of the policy in regard to the allotment of houses, sons of the deceased employees were not covered by the policy and were, therefore, not entitled to an out of turn allotment. He was further advised to vacate the house which was in his occupation. It is against this communication that the present writ petition was filed.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner did not vacate the Government accommodation which was allotted to his father. He was asked to pay the market rent at the rent of Rs. 785/- per month which he has been paying. Thereafter in terms of the Government instructions, the House Allotment Committee had directed that the petitioner should pay penal rent at the rate of fifty times the normal rent with effect from June, 1997 to September 1998. Normal rent of the accommodation in the occupation of the petitioner is Rs. 98/- per month and fifty times this amount comes to Rs. 4900/- per month. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 78,400/- is now sought to be recovered from the petitioner by way of penal rent of the accommodation.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and it is not in dispute that the petitioner has since vacated the premises as he stands transferred out from Chandigarh. He has been paying the market rent at the rate of Rs. 785/- per month. To ask him to pay penal rent at the rate of Rs. 4900/- per month with effect from June, 1997 to September 1993 in the circumstances would be unfair. He is a clerk drawing a meagre salary and was given compassionate appointment on the death of his father. Now that he was vacated the premises it would be fair to direct him to pay the market rent till the period he remained in occupation. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case and without making it a precedent, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to charge market rent from the petitioner till the period he remained in occupation of the accommodation. Consequently, the order dated 29.9.1998 requiring him to pay arrears to the tune of Rs. 78,400/- with effect from June, 1997 to September, 1998 is quashed. No costs.