Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GULAB CHANDRA TIWARI versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gulab Chandra Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 37764 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13276 (1 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition  No. 37764 of 2007

Gulab Chandra Tiwari

versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioner has been performing and discharging his duty as Constable, and in lieu of being posted in 36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi, he has been allocated  residential premises, House No. 184 Block No. 16 new Colony Ram Nagar Varanasi. Petitioner has been transferred from   36 Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi to 34th  Ba. P.A.C. Bhullenpur Varanasi. Petitioner has contended that he  has given his joining. Petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises in question, which is  being occupied at  36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi. Petitioner has contended that he is posted in same District as such he is entitled to retain the premises in question.

Sri R.V. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case, petitioner has been transferred in same district, as such in all eventuality petitioner is entitled to  retain accommodation at 36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi and there is no reason to direct eviction of petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that once petitioner has been transferred, then he has no right to retain the government accommodation and there is  Government Order dated 21.1.2004 and as per the same after being transferred , premises in question has to be vacated , as such no relief can be accorded to the petitioner.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position, which is emerging in the present case is that  from the own showing of the petitioner, premises in question, which has been allotted to him, same is on account of the fact that he is member of  36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi.  Once petitioner had been transferred from  36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi to 34th  Ba. P.A.C. Bhullenpur Varanasi, petitioner can  not be permitted to retain residential premises, which is meant for the member of the force, who constitute part of  36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi. The description of the colony itself mention  new colony  36th  Ba. P.A.C. Ram Nagar Varanasi. In this background once incumbent has been transferred , then he has to vacate the premises in question. Merely because two Battalion are posted in the territorial limit of Varanasi, same will not permit the petitioner to retain the premises in question  for a particular Battalion,  even after he has been transferred to different Battalion. The judgment on which reliance has been place cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner, as here the residential premises  i.e. to accommodate members of 36th  Battalion P.A.C. as such cannot be permitted to retain aforementioned premises .

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. "

^^egRoiw.kZ

la05913@6&12&03&1¿67�? Mh @03

izs"kd]

vo/ks'k dqekj ik.Ms;]

vuqlfpo]

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

egksn;]

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;�?

                                                    vuqlfpoA**  

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 petitioner,  Petitioner admittedly has been transferred,  he has 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 petitioner to vacate the residential premises.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 16.8.2007

T.S.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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