J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The plaintiff petitioner has filed this petition against the order of the Judge, Small Cause Court, Amritsar, dated 28th Nov., 1973, whereby her suit was partially dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff petitioner is employed as Nursing Sister in the Punjab Health Services Department and is posted in the V. J. Hospital, Amritsar. She under the orders from the Director of Health Services, Punjab, Chandigarh, defendant No. 2 was transferred from Employees' State Insurance Hospital at Amritsar to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and was relieved from her duty at Amritsar on 31st March, 1970 afternoon. She alleges that she was entitled under the statutory rules of services by which she and other such employees are governed to enjoy the joining time with effect from 1st April, 1970 onwards and while she was still on joining time, she received orders from the defendants cancelling the previous transfer order and the plaintiff was ordered to join her duties as Nursing Sister in the Hospital on 10th April, 1970, forenoon, and under these circumstances she claimed that she Is entitled to receive her salary for the period 1st April, 1970 to 9th April, 1970, at the rate at which she was drawing her salary at the relevant time. However, the claim of Rs. 148/1990 paise on this ground has been decreed by the Small Cause Court. The other claim relates to the house rent allowance at the rate of 10 per cent of the pay or actual rent whichever is less to the Nursing Staff and the plaintiff who was provided rent free accommodation, was entitled to house rent allowance on the condition that the accommodation as arranged by the employees was considered suitable for proper performance of the duty etc., and was near to the premises of their regular duties. She, while posted as Nursing Sister in the Employees' State Insurance Hospital, was In occupation of Government quarter upto 14th May, 1970, when she was required to vacate the same on her transfer as Nursing Sister in the V.J. Hospital, Amritsar and since that date she not been provided Government accommodation and she had to arrange for the necessary accommodation herself on private level. Consequently, the was able to get a portion of house No. 69, Bhawanl Nagar, Amritsar at a monthly rent of Rs. 130 and she remained in occupation of that house from 14th May, 1970 to 31st Dec., 1970 and she had actually paid rent for that period at the stipulated Irate to her landlord Karam Singh vide receipts which had been already submitted to the defendant concerned, along with her representation for payment of rent Thus she Is entitled to receive Rs 1,176 22 paise being 10 per cent of the pay etc. la the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1, the factual position that the plaintiff was relieved from the Employees State Insurance Hospital from 1st April, 1970 and was to join at Rajinder Hospital, Patiala on 7th April, 1970, and her order was cancelled by the Director of Health Services, Punjab, were admitted. As regards the house sent claimed by the plaintiff, the defendant stated that she was entitled to house rent if she had applied on the prescribed proforma, along with certificate from the P. W. D Authorities to the effect that no Government accommodation was available for her and that she was not entitled to house rent allowance at the rate of 10 per cent unless and until she applied for the same on the prescribed proforma. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to leave salary from 1st April, 1970 to 9th April, 1970. If so, what amount ? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to house rent allowance at the rate of 10 per cent from 14th May, 1970 to 14th April, 1972 ? If so, to what amount ? As stated earlier, issue No. I was decided in favour of the plaintiff petitioner and is no more contested. On Issue No. 2, the claim of the plaintiff was rejected on the ground that she failed to produce the secondary evidence in respect of the receipts and the receipts produced by her, do not bear the full particulars of the owner of the house as also the number and location of the house for which the house rent is Claimed. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the plaintiff petitioner has come in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this finding of the Small Cause Court, is illegal and against the evidence on the record. I find force In this contention - I have gone through the evidence and the receipts produced by the plaintiff petitioner. Admittedly, the receipts. Exhibits P. 29 to P. 33 do bear the number and location of the house for which house rent is being claimed. Though the signature of the owner of the house is there but the full particulars as such are not given. In my opinion, this Is hardly a ground to dismiss her claim for house sent allowance which she is, otherwise, entitled under the statutory rules. From the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff has been victim of various transfers on which account she had to vacate the earlier Government accommodation Her claim Is not to be rejected on such technical grounds. The Small Cause Court has acted illegally and with material Irregularity in the exercise of Its jurisdiction. Consequently this petition succeeds, the order of the Small Cause Court is set aside and the suit If decree In to to, with costs, throughout. Appeal Allowed.;