Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 529 (PNJ)

Shanta Malhotra v. Management (Through President) Arya Girls College, Ambala Cantt

2002-05-13

R.L.ANAND

body2002
Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. Dr. Shanta Malhotra, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued against the respondents directing them not to deduct the penal rent amounting Rs. 1,00,580/- i.e. 50 times of normal rent for the months of November and December, 1999 for the small accommodation i.e. two rooms which were in possession of the petitioner when she was the Principal of the College. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that she retired as Principal of Arya Girls College on 30.6.1999 after rendering 40 years service. The college was affiliated with Kurukshetra University. The petitioner was given rent free accommodation i.e. she was in possession of two room set with courtyard. The rental value of the premises is Rs. 1243/- per year. The petitioner used to pay Rs. 100/- per month on account of water and electricity charges. The retiral benefits were not released to the petitioner on account of the malafide intention on the part of the respondent as a result of which the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 14698 of 1999 and obtained the orders dated 15.10.1999. Even those orders were not complied with. The petitioner filed a COCP No. 1607 of 1999 in which some interim directions were issued on 4.10.2000. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the management of the college issued notice for a sum of Rs. 1,00,580/- i.e. the 50 times of the house rent for two months and this demand is illegal, oppressive, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and the instructions of the government. According to the petitioner, she was entitled to rent free accommodation. The management allowed him to occupy the premises for four months and only 5% of the basic pay were charged from her for these four months but for the months of November and December, the petitioner is being compelled to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,580/- which demand is totally illegal, arbitrary. The respondents were called upon not to press for this demand and to release the retiral benefits but to no effect. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. 1,00,580/- which demand is totally illegal, arbitrary. The respondents were called upon not to press for this demand and to release the retiral benefits but to no effect. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and it was pleaded that the subject matter of the writ petition is already sub judice before the Civil Court at Ambala and the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. The trial Court held that the petitioner shall be liable to pay rent at the rate of 50 times of the House Rent leviable at the rate of 5% of the basic pay for the period of unauthorised occupation of the college property. The appeal was filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed as infructuous as petitioner had vacated the premises. No fundamental right of the petitioner is involved. The retiral benefits have been released to the petitioner. The demand of the aforesaid amount is totally justified. 4. A joint written statement was also filed on behalf of respondents 2, 5 and 6. According to these respondents, the petitioners have no cause of action against the respondents because the letter Annexure P-9 under challenge was issued by respondent No. 4 and order Annexure P-7 was issued by the High Court in a contempt petition. The dispute regarding the house rent allowance is pending in the Civil Courts at Ambala. It is pending between the petitioner and the management. No master servant relation arises. The State Government only provides the 95% of the deficit of the salary in the form of grant-in-aid to the colleges who are on grant-in-aid list of the State Government. The retiral benefits in the revised scales have already been released to the petitioner prior to 4.10.2000 accept (except ?) the pension. With this defence, these respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard Shri G.L. Sadana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J.M.S. Bhalla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Ms Ritu Bahri, learned DAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. 5. I have heard Shri G.L. Sadana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J.M.S. Bhalla, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 and Ms Ritu Bahri, learned DAG, Haryana, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, 5 and 6 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. It is the admitted case of the parties that petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 30.6.1999. It is also the common case of the parties that when petitioner was the Principal of the College, she was provided with the rent free accommodation. There are no rules of the College vide which an ex- employee of the College can occupy the Government accommodation as a matter of course or as a matter of right. As per the conventions of the College, on retirement a Principal is allowed to occupy the previous accommodation in his/her possession provided he/she pays 5% of the basic pay. It is also the case of the petitioner herself that she vacated the premises on 31.12.1999. In these circumstances, the only point for determination is, at what rate the petitioner is supposed to pay the money for use and occupation of the house with effect from 1.7.1999 to 31.12.1999. During the course of submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has shown me the calculation sheet vide which the office of A.G. (Audit) Haryana, Chandigarh has assessed that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 96980/-. This calculation was made as per the order of the Civil Judge, Ambala Cantt, passed in Civil Suit No. 185 of 1999. The break up of the recovery is as follows :- Rent from 1.7.1999 to 31.10.1999 at the rate of 5% of basic pay of Rs. 932.50 per month = 3730/- Penal rent from 1.11.1999 to 31.12.1999 at the rate of 50 times of normal rent Rs. 46625/- per month = 93250/- Rs. 96,980/-, 7. The order of the Civil Judge was interim order passed in the Civil Suit. As admitted by the audit cell of A.G. that petitioner is liable to pay 5% of the basic pay for four months i.e. 1.7.1999 to 31.10.1999. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with this assessment of Rs. 3730/-. 96,980/-, 7. The order of the Civil Judge was interim order passed in the Civil Suit. As admitted by the audit cell of A.G. that petitioner is liable to pay 5% of the basic pay for four months i.e. 1.7.1999 to 31.10.1999. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with this assessment of Rs. 3730/-. With regard to the assessment of penal rent for two months amounting to Rs. 93250/- this Court is of the opinion that it is very harsh and oppressive. At the most it amounts to over stay on the part of the petitioner that she did not vacate the premises for six months. Calling upon the ex-employee to pay 50 times of the normal rent of the demised premises will be a harsh decision. Therefore, this Court orders that petitioner must pay by way of use and occupation for the period 1.11.1999 to 31.12.1999 on the market rent of the premises which were in occupation of the petitioner. The market rent of the premises in possession of the petitioner shall be determined by the P.W.D. authorities by applying their norms and guidelines as mentioned in the P.W.D. Schedule etc. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition by giving declaration that petitioner shall pay Rs. 3730/- by way of use and occupation for the months of July to October, 1999 and she will also pay the market rent of the premises in her possession for the period 1.11.1999 to 31.12.1999, which shall be assessed by the Executive Engineer P.W.D. B&R. He will make the assessment within one month from the receipt of the copy of this judgment. Executive Engineer can depute S.D.O. well conversant with the rules for the compliance of the directions of this Court. The copy of the order be sent to the XEN PWD B&R Ambala for the compliance of this order. The assessment shall be sent to the Management Committee Arya Girls College Ambala Cantt. The management committee is also authorised to withhold the amount from the dues of the petitioner to the extent the assessment is made by the P.W.D. authorities in addition to Rs. 23730/- the rental for the period 1.7.1999 to 31.10.1999. There shall be no order as to costs.