1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, which came up before us on transfer under Section 29(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The petitioner prays for issuance of writ of certiorari, mandamus directing the respondents, to reimburse the petitioner for the rent paid by him during his posting as Principal, Central Detective Training School at Chandigarh, to provide accomodation to him free of costs during the remainder of his tenure or in the alternative to reimburse the, petitioner the rent paid by him for his residential accomodation during the period he remains as Principal of the said School. The petitioner is borne on the Union Territory Cadre of the Indian Police Service. He was posted as Principal of the Central Detective Training School, Chandigarh Order dated March 23, 1981 (Annexure P- 1) of the Commissioner of Police Delhi. Besides remuneration, which is due to the incumbent of the said post of Principal, Central Detective Training School, Chandigarh, the petitioner is also entitled to a rent free accomodation or compensation in lieu thereof on confrere basis. The Respondent No. 1 conveyed necessary sanction of the President of India in this behalf inconsultation with the Ministry of Finance, which is appended as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner on being posted at Chandigarh, took on rent House No. 128, Sector, 28-A, Chandigarh at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- for his residential purposes w.e.f April, 4, 1981. On May 16, 1981 he shifted to House No. 123, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, the rent for which was settled at Rs. 1300/- permonth. A copy of the Rent agreement entered into with the Land-lord is Annexure P-6 to the writ petition.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled to rent free unfurnished accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof on confrere basis. The Government of India, vide their Order No. 19/2/75-Admn. (BPRD)/F(P) dated 21st October, 1975 conveyed the sanction of the President of India to the grant of rent free unfurnished accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof on confrere basis to the Principal, Vice Principal and Deputy Superintendent of Police in Central Detective Training School, Chandigarh, which has been denied to him in spite of the fact that he made requests to the authorities many times.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents are under an obligation to provide rent free accommodation or compensation in lieu thereof on confrere basis. On earlier occasion, rent free unfurnished accomodation was granted to the predecessor of the petitioner namely Shri R.S Sahaye, I.P.S, who was posted as Principal, Central Detective Traning School, Chandigarh from April, 17,1978 to 9th June, 1980 while implementing the sanction conveyed by the Government of India vide their letter dated 21st October, 1975 (Annexure P-2) Besides this, in the Central Detective Training School at Calcutta, the present incumbent Shri U.N Biswas, IPS has also been provided rent free unfurnished accommodation. The learned Counsel has also brought to out notice that a subordinate of the petitioner namely Shri Pritam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. Detective Training School, Chandigarh in the capacity of Instructor has been allowed the benefit of the Government of India letter dated the 21st October, 1975 (Annexure P-2) by alloting him the rent free accommodation, whereas the benefit in the aforesaid communication has” ben denied to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner is not entitled to rent free accommodation, because he will be only entitled it his confrere ot the Mate of Punjab or Haryana cadre posted in Chandigarh is entitled tnt.be same. The petitioner is an Officer of Indian Police Service and his confrere is an Officer of the Service of Punjab or Haryana Cadre having equal rank. Since an Officer of Indian Police Service of Punjab or Haryana Cadre, who is confrere of the petitioner is not entitled to rent free accommodation, similarly the petitioner cannot be granted the rent free accommodation as per sanction of the Government of India referred to above. The learned Counsel further argues that the predecessor of the petitioner namely Shri R.S Sahaye while posted as Principal of the said School was not granted rent free accommodation. The said Officer did not obtain any clearance from the Headquarters of Bureau of Police Research and Development, New Delhi whether or not he was to pay licence fee for the accommodation allotted to him by the Chandigarh Administration. Action against him was taken. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel that Shri. U.N Biswas, the present incumbent to the post of Principal, Central Detective Training School, Calcutta has been provided rent free accommodation and he is not paying the licence fee in view of the fact that his confrere, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Calcutta is entitled to rent free accommodation and is not paying any licence fee for the Govt, accommodation allotted to him.
6. It has also ben brought to our notice that Shri Pritam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (working as Instructor) in he Central Detective Training School, Chandigarh was provided rent free accommodation by the petitioner by misinterpretation of the orders dated 21.10.1975 of the Govt, of India (Annexure P. 2). On a reference received by the Bureau of Police Research and development Headquarters, New Delhi, Chandigarh, he was informed that the said Officer had to pay licence fee, because he was not entitled to rent free accommodation at Chandigarh. This decision was taken in view of the fact that confrere of Pritam Singh; Deputy Superintendent of Police of Punjab or Haryana posted in Chandigarh is not entitled to rent free accommodation and has to pay the ususal licence fee as per rules. According to the “The Lexicon Webster Dictionary” confrere has been defined as:
“A fellow member of a fraternity or profession; a colleague.”
7. This Court was informed that a confrere of the petitioner posted at Chandigarh is not allowed rent free accommodation, but he was only entitled to House Rent Allowance. The Respondent's Counsel was directed to inform this Court whether the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh is entitle to rent free accommodation. In turn, we have been informed by the learned’ Counsel that IPS Officers, when appointed as SP/AD and Assistant Inspector General in the Central Bureau of Investigation and in the outstations will have the option either:
(i) to get rent free accommodation (if available) or House Rent Allowances in lieu thereof as admissible to the corresponding Police Officers in the State of Posting on confrere basis,
(ii) to draw House Rent Allowance at the rates admissible to the Central Govt, employees as per orders of the Govt, of India and subject to the conditions issued from time to time as may be laid down under general/specific orders of the Govt, of India.
8. This Court is of the view that the petitioner shall be entitled to rent free accommodation only if his confrere viz. an Officer of Indian Police Service of Punjab, Haryana or U.T Cadre posted at Chandigarh is given the privilege of rent free accommodation. The immediate Confrere of the applicant i.e Senior superintendent of Police was also not enjoying the benefit of rent free accommodation. Since the confrere, of the petitioner namely. SP/AD and Assistant Inspector General in the Central Bureau of Investigation while posted at Chandigarh, are not availing the benefit of rent free accommodation, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to draw the House Rent Allowance at the rates admissible to the Central Government employees as per their entitlement. The Compensation used in the term, means the House rent to which the petitioner is only entitled.
9. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Petition dismissed.