Man Occupies Deceased Father's Govt Accommodation For 17 Yrs Based On Punjab & Haryana HC's Interim Order, Asked To Pay 5 Lakh Compensation

In a peculiar case where a deceased government employee's son continued to occupy his father's government accommodation for a period of 17 years on the strength of an interim order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court back in 2006, the son has now been asked to compensate the State government in lieu of penal rent.

The son was though appointed as a clerk on compassionate basis and was entitled to government accommodation himself, the same would be of a different category than the house he was occupying.

Court said this fact was not brought to its notice when the case was initiated.

"Keeping in view the principle of “Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit” i.e no one should be made to suffer on account of the orders of the Court has to be taken into consideration and while this Court finds that the petitioner was not required to pay penal rent in terms of the interim order passed by the Court which had been made absolute, the Chandigarh Administration Authorities cannot be denied completely their right to claim legal dues from the petitioner otherwise unauthorizedly occupying the premises," bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma observed while directing him to pay Rs. 5 lakh to the State.

Pertinent to note, as per provisions of Rule 13(2) of the Allotment Rules of 1996, the family of the deceased Govt. Employee is entitled to retain the Govt. accommodation for a maximum period of one year.

Petitioner's father died in 2001 while serving as Superintendent Grade-I of Punjab Civil Secretariat. Petitioner secured compassionate appointment in 2004. He approached the Court in 2005 opposing orders passed by the Chandigarh administration rejecting his claim for out of turn allotment of government accommodation.

It is at this juncture that the interim order was passed. Court had found that petitioner was entitled for out of turn allotment after he was granted compassionate appointment.

After examining the petition the Court opined that "the petitioner continued to occupy the same government residence which was allotted to his late father till he has vacated it after constructing his own house in 2023. While he was appointed as a Clerk, he was occupying the house which is meant for a Superintendent which is of a much higher level and was unauthorized as per Rules."

Appearance: Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G.Punjab.

Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate, for respondents no.2 to 4.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 187