Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 871 (PNJ)

Rup Lal v. State of Punjab

2012-07-06

RAJIVE BHALLA, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of letter dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure P-7), decision dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) and has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot plot measuring 5 marlas as per the notified scheme dated 31.8.2001. 2. In brief, the case set up by the petitioner is that when he was working as Daftri in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority (for short ‘PUDA’), a scheme was floated on 27.6.2000 by PUDA to allot LIG and MIG houses to its Class III and IV employees. The petitioner, being fully eligible, applied for a LIG house on 10.8.2000. His application was registered vide diary No.4764 dated 10.8.2000 and he deposited earnest money of Rs.10,000/- by way of Bank Draft. 3. On 24.8.2000, the scheme dated 27.6.2000 was modified to the extent that in place of triple storeyed, double storeyed houses were proposed to be constructed. As the petitioner was to retire on 31.1.2001, he made an application, vide diary No.436 on 25.1.2001 to the Chief Administrator, PUDA, for allotment of a house. 4. However, the scheme was further modified on 31.8.2001 and it was decided to allot residential plots in place of residential houses and the benefit of scheme was also extended to Class I and Class II employees. It was provided in the modified scheme that persons, who have already deposited the earnest money, need not deposit it again and were only required to submit necessary application on the prescribed proforma with their affidavit. 5. The petitioner, however, was informed by respondent No.3, vide letter dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure P-7) that his application cannot be considered in the aforesaid scheme as he had already retired. The petitioner addressed a representation to the Additional Chief Administrator (Policy), PUDA, that as he had applied for and deposited the earnest money on 10.8.2000 i.e. well before the date of his retirement, his application deserves to be considered but his repeated representations, namely, Annexures P-8 to P-10, fell on deaf ears, resulting into filing of CWP No.15630 of 2002, which was disposed of on 27.9.2002 with the direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate speaking order within a period of one month. In compliance of the said order, the Chief Administrator of the PUDA, passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-12), observing that as the petitioner has retired, he is not entitled to allotment of a plot. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application for allotment was made by the petitioner while he was in service, his earnest money is lying deposited with the department and since the respondents had taken time in making allotment by modifying the scheme time and again, the petitioner cannot be punished, if he retired in the meantime. It is also contended that it was clearly provided in condition No.3 of the modified scheme dated 31.8.2001, that those employees who had deposited earnest money against the earlier scheme of providing built up houses and were interested in taking plots, are not required to deposit the earnest money again. It is submitted that scheme under which the petitioner had applied for allotment of house was never scrapped, rather it was modified to the extent that instead of residential house(s), plot(s) would be allotted and in further modification of scheme, the other categories of employees, namely, Class I and Class II, were also included for giving the same benefit. 7. The petitioner had also placed on record documents, i.e., Annexures P-14 to P-17, which pertain to a complaint, of one similarly situated employee of PUDA, namely, Jai Ram, made before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short ‘the Forum’), which was allowed by the Forum, vide its order dated 7.5.2003, on the reasoning that when the scheme was floated, the claimant was an employee of the department and it was nowhere mentioned that if the applicant retires from service before allotment, he would be debarred from claiming benefit under the scheme. The order passed by the Forum, was challenged by PUDA by way of appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short ‘State Commission’), which was dismissed on 8.7.2003. The said order was upheld in revision by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short ‘National Commission’) and also by the Apex Court as the SLP filed by the PUDA was dismissed on 23.8.2004. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot and the orders Annexures P-7 and P-12, being illegal, are liable to be quashed. 8. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot and the orders Annexures P-7 and P-12, being illegal, are liable to be quashed. 8. In reply it is submitted that the allotment of houses/plots stood automatically scrapped in view of the new scheme floated by the PUDA on 31.8.2001 and since the petitioner had already retired on 31.1.2001, he was not eligible to apply under the aforesaid scheme. It is also alleged that the scheme under which the petitioner applied along with other persons, never materialized and none of the employee was granted any house/plot under the said scheme. The amount of earnest money of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the petitioner was refunded to him. It is further alleged that the PUDA had framed a scheme on 27.6.2000 and invited applications for allotment of LIG and MIG houses for its Class III and Class IV employees, in the following ratio: PUDA Employees : 75% Directorate Employees : 25% 9. It was provided under the scheme dated 27.6.2000 that in case of Directorate employees, the individual should have completed at least 10 years’ service and the allotment was based on seniority. This scheme was amended on 24.8.2000, the condition of 10 years’ service was reduced to 5 years and it was decided that double storeyed houses would be constructed instead of triple storeyed house. It is alleged that the aforesaid scheme was substituted by scheme dated 31.8.2001, which closed on 28.9.2001. Since the petitioner had retired from government service on 31.1.2001, therefore, he was not eligible to apply. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully. 11. There is no dispute that the petitioner was an employee of PUDA and it floated a scheme on 27.6.2000 for allotment of houses to its Class III and Class IV employees. It is not denied that the petitioner was fully eligible for allotment of a house on 10.8.2000, who had applied by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as earnest money. On 24.8.2000, the scheme dated 27.6.2000, was modified and instead of construction of triple storeyed houses it was decided to construct double storeyed houses. As the petitioner, whose retirement was due on 31.1.2001, made an application on 25.1.2001 to the Chief Administrator, PUDA, for allotment of a house. On 24.8.2000, the scheme dated 27.6.2000, was modified and instead of construction of triple storeyed houses it was decided to construct double storeyed houses. As the petitioner, whose retirement was due on 31.1.2001, made an application on 25.1.2001 to the Chief Administrator, PUDA, for allotment of a house. His application was duly received against diary No.436 dated 25.1.2001, but no action was taken on it rather the scheme was further modified on 31.8.2001 whereby it was decided to allot plots instead of residential houses and to cover Class I and Class II employees as well. Condition No.3 of the said scheme dated 31.8.2001, provided that persons, who had already deposited earnest money, need not deposit it again and were only required to submit necessary application on the prescribed proforma with an affidavit, which was duly furnished by the petitioner on 11.9.2001 but his application for allotment of plot was rejected on 9.10.2001 on the ground that he had already retired. 12. The sum and substance of the entire controversy is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to allotment of a plot on the basis of his application, which was filed when he was in service or could he be denied allotment merely on the ground that he retired from service before the respondents could take decision on his application for the allotment of plot. 13. In this regard, one Jai Ram son of Bishna, Superintendent of PUDA, who had also applied for allotment of a plot in terms of the scheme dated 27.6.2000, vide his application dated 12.8.2000, deposited Rs.20,000/-, but was informed on 22.8.2002 that he is not eligible for allotment of plot in the newly framed scheme of PUDA, since he had retired. Jai Ram filed a complaint before the Forum, which was allowed on 8.7.2003 and PUDA failed in its appeal filed before the State Commission, in revision before the National Commission and in Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the order of the Forum was upheld to the effect that Jai Ram was entitled to allotment of plot because he had applied for it when he was in service and there was nothing in the scheme which could debar a person, who would retire subsequently. 14. The facts and circumstances of the petitioner are almost similar to the facts and circumstances of the case of Jai Ram s/o Sh. 14. The facts and circumstances of the petitioner are almost similar to the facts and circumstances of the case of Jai Ram s/o Sh. Bishna, aforesaid, furthermore we are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot as he had applied for the same when he was in service and there is no provision in any modified scheme or as alleged by the respondents in the new scheme, by which he could be denied a plot being a retiree. The petitioner’s basic eligibility was determined in the initial scheme and at no stage, during the process of amendment of schemes, any clause was introduced that original applications of employees, who have, subsequently retired would be rejected. The so called new scheme, admittedly, protects the rights of applicants, who had already applied under the original scheme. The stand of PUDA, in our considered opinion, is illegal and highly inequitable. 15. In view thereof, the writ petition is hereby allowed, the impugned letter dated 9.10.2001 (Annexure P-7) and order dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) are hereby set aside, with necessary consequences to follow, within three months. No costs.