Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Harish Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 32289 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12691 (24 July 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No. 32289 of 2007

Harish Kumar and others


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioners, who are 38 in number have approached this court requesting therein for quashing of the notice dated 13.7.2007 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad asking the petitioners to vacate the residential premises ,which have been allotted to them in lieu of stay at Moradabad on account of the  fact that they have  now been transferred from the said place.

Contention of petitioners is that in the year 1997, District J.P. Nagar came into existence, petitioners have been serving  in U.P. Police Force and have been discharging their duties at  district Moradabad, out of which district J.P. Nagar was carved. Petitioners have contended that they have been transferred to district J.P. Nagar, but as no residential accommodation are available there, as such they are entitled to retain the residential premises at Moradabad in term of Government Order dated 17.9.1997. Petitioners have contended that in compliance of the order dated 17.9.1997 , Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad issued letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned on 24.9.1997. Petitioners have contended that  as at J.P. Nagar  there is no residential quarter, as such notices  issued are unjustifiable.

On the presentation of the writ petition, learned Standing Counsel  was directed to obtain necessary instruction in the matter and thereafter necessary instructions have been obtained.   Thereafter said instructions have been perused by the learned counsel for the petitioners also and with the consent of the parties, present writ petition is being decided.

Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case, as no alternative accommodation has been made available at J.P. Nagar , as such in all eventuality petitioners are entitled to continue at Moradabad in consonance with the Government Order dated 17.9.1997.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that once petitioners have been transferred , then they have no right to retain the government accommodation and there is fresh Government Order dated 21.1.2004 and as per the same after being transferred within  period of one month, premises in question has to be vacated . Here all the petitioners have been transferred from Moradabad  and 200  police constables, who are posted at Moradabad are already in the que of waiting  for  the house to be allotted  to  them, as such no relief can be accorded to the petitioners.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is  admitted in the present case that each one of  the petitioner has been transferred from Moradabad and  is not at all serving at Moradabad and has been transferred to J.P. Nagar, and on the strength of  Government Order dated 17.9.1997 claims that he is entitled to retain the residential premises at Moradabad. Government Order  dated 17.9.1997 has been perused. Said Government Order clearly reflects that  it was in respect of those employees who were working in the District, at the point of time when new District was carved out, and were required to go to newly carved District. It was categorically mentioned in the said Government Order, that in the newly carved District, arrangement is being made to make available house  in pooled scheme or till houses are not constructed in any other scheme, incumbent be permitted to retain the old premises, on following term and condition (i) Incumbent should not be resident of old district/newly carved district (2) Incumbent should not have his/her own residential premises, either in the old district/new district (3) Incumbent should be residing in the premises of the old district in house allotted under house  pool scheme and under house pool scheme, in new district house is not available. The  Government order is clearly referable to incumbents, who were working in the District, at the point of time, when new District was  carved out. None of the petitioners were serving in the undivided district of Moradabad, when new District  J.P. Nagar was carved out, as such petitioners cannot be permitted to derive any benefit out of the same. More Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 987 of 2000 K.M. Raizada  Vs. Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh  and others gave categorical direction for the entire State of U.P. that all officials accommodation must  similarly be got vacated  within one month of the retirement/transfer of the employee of the Government, Local Bodies, Public Sector, undertaking  statutory bodies etc. by police force unless the employee voluntarily vacates it earlier. Pursuant to Division Bench judgment of this Court, Government Order dated 21.1.2004 has been issued, copy of the same has been addressed to the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow.  As per the same, once petitioners have been transferred,  then they have got no legal right whatsoever to kept the residential premises. Relevant extract of judgment is being extracted below:-

"Heard Shri Shiv Nath Singh for the appellant and Sri Avanish Goel for the respondents.

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 28.8.2003.

The appellant was in the employment of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and in that capacity he was allotted an official accommodation at Ghanta Ghar, Civil Lines, Aligarh in 1989. He retired in February, 2003, but he has not yet vacated the official accommodation in his possession.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relief on a Scheme of the State Government inviting application for conversion of nazul land into free hold. In our opinion this is wholly irrelevant to the present case. When an employee in possession of an official accommodation retires or is transferred, he should within a reasonable time vacate the accommodation in his possession, otherwise his successor will have on place to live in. Decent people vacate the accommodation immediately after retirement or transfer, but in this country, decency evidently at a discount. Case after case is coming before us in which an official who has retired or was transferred continues to hold to the official accommodation, often even several years after the retirement or transfer. This disgraceful practice has become imagine and now it must be produced.

We, therefore, dismiss this appeal, but we also directed the appellant will be evicted from the official accommodation  in which possession by police force within one month from today unless  unless the vacates it earlier.

We further direct that throughout U.P. all official accommodations must similarly be got vacated within one month of the retirement/transfer of the employee of the Government, Local Bodies, Public Sector, undertaking statutory Bodies etc, by police force unless the employee voluntarily vacates it earlier. The employee who are already retired or have been transferred more  than one month before this judgment, will be evicted  from the official accommodation in their possession within a week.

Let the Registrar General of this Court send , copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Home  Secretary L.R.  And D.I.G. U.P. forthwith. "


la05913@6&12&03&1¿67�? Mh @03


vo/ks'k dqekj ik.Ms;]


m0iz0 'kkluA

lsok esa]

iqfyl egkfuns'kd]

m0iz0 y[ku�?A

iqfyl vuqHkkx&12                                    y[ku�?% fnukad 21 tuojh] 2004

fo"k;%& Lis'ky vihy la0&987@2003 esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds bykgkckn ds vkns'k         fn0 30-9-03 dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djk;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA


mi;qZDr fo"k;d ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds vkns'k fn0&30-9-03 dh Nk;kizfr izsf"kr djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd d`i;k iz'uxr izdj.k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djkus gsrq leLr iqfyl v/kh{kd @ ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd mRrj izns'k ,oa vU; lacaf/kr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks funsZf'kr djus dk d"V djsaA

d`r dk;Zokgh ls d`i;k 'kklu dks voxr djkus dk d"V djk;k tk;A

layXud% ;FkksDrA                                        Hkonh;]

                                                ¿vo/ks'k dqekj ik.Ms;�?


Consequently, in the present case, once there is specific Government Order issued by the State Government, copy of the same addressed to Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow also and action has been taken as per the same, no reprieve can be given to petitioners, specially when 200 persons serving in District Moradabad are in the waiting. Petitioner admittedly have been transferred,  they have no right to retain accommodation in question. There is no infirmity in the view, which has been taken by the authority concerned by asking the petitioners to vacate the residential premises.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 24.7.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.