Chandigarh13 minutes ago
- copy link
Manoj Parida, former advisor to Chandigarh Administrator.
Manoj Parida, former advisor to Chandigarh Administrator BP Singh Badnore, has got relief from the High Court. The High Court has dismissed the application seeking action against Manoj Parida and House Allotment Committee secretary Vinod P Kavle by former Additional Chief Secretary of Punjab and presently Food Commission Chairman DP Reddy. While filing a petition in the High Court, Reddy had challenged the decision of canceling the allotment of his residence in Sector-7.
It was told in the petition that in 2018, he had taken premature retirement from the post of Additional Chief Secretary of Punjab. After this, he joined the Punjab Food Commission as the chairman. After the appointment, while giving a representation to the administration, he had demanded that the same house be allotted to him. His demand was rejected by the Committee of Administration, after which he again made a representation which was again rejected.
During this, while giving notice to him, the administration committee said that he should first vacate the old residence and then apply afresh. The Chandigarh Administration had said that as per the rules of appointment of the petitioner, he is not entitled to government accommodation but to house allowance of 30 per cent of his basic pay. The High Court, after hearing all the parties, placed the representation given by the petitioner before the committee and in the next one month to re-allocate their present residence or within 1 month after allotting a higher class house according to their category. Decisions were ordered.
Now by filing an application, he said that on May 4, 2021, the House Allotment Committee has shown a liability of Rs 23,16,298. The petitioner said that the High Court had ordered that the status quo will remain until the committee takes a decision on their demand letter, but such a decision has been taken against the decision of the court. In such a situation, action should be taken against Parida and Kavale. The High Court, while dismissing the application, said that if the petitioner wants, he can challenge the order of this liability through a fresh petition.