Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8973 of 2018 Petitioner :- Durgesh Kumar Pal Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
It appears that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.59866 of 2017, which came to be disposed of vide following order on 22.12.2017:-
"Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for State of U.P.
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 28.11.2017, by which the petitioner has been asked to vacate the official accommodation.
A perusal of the notices shows that it has been mentioned in it that the petitioner is living in his private house at Sulemsarai, while in the official accommodation, one Smt. Monika Pal is residing. According to the petitioner, Smt. Monika Pal is wife of the petitioner. There is family dispute between husband and wife, due to which, the petitioner is at present residing at Sulemsarai. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is going to attain the age of superannuation on 31.1.2018 and he will vacate the official accommodation upto 31.1.2018.
In view of statement given by counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall be permitted to retain the official accommodation upto 31.1.2018."
Petitioner submits that he has already vacated the premises and that his wife is unauthorizedly continuing in the premises. It is stated that there are matrimonial issues between him and his wife. Disputes at various levels are pending. Petitioner contends that he is also paying maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and also under Domestic Violence Act. It is also stated that respondents would be at liberty get the premises vacated in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the authority concerned shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
In view of the fact that the house was allotted to the petitioner in his capacity as an employee of the department and he has already retired, it would be open for the respondents to proceed as per law for getting the premises vacated. Petitioner's retiral benefit will not be withheld only for the reason that petitioner has not vacated the premises allotted to him.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 Ashok Kr.