IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.40248 of 2014 BETWEEN L.G.S. Padma Rao.
... PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department (Accommodation-A), Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. B. VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR GENERAL ADMIN. (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition questions the order of the Estate Officer, Hyderabad dated 30.05.2014 wherein the petitioner was required to vacate the Government Quarter in view of the fact that the was transferred to Kodad, Nalgonda District on 25.04.2013 and subsequently, discharged from service on 20.05.2014 but still continuing to occupy the Government quarter at Hyderabad.
2. Petitioner has not questioned the said order by approaching the appellate authority under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 but instead approached the Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department seeking permission to stay in the said quarter on the ground that the order of discharge was suspended by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3439 of 2014 under order dated 12.06.2014 and the said OA is pending before the Tribunal. However, petitioner’s request for continuation in the said quarter was refused by the Principal Secretary to Government under his memo dated 18.10.2014 and thereafter, also petitioner has not vacated the quarter nor has taken further proceedings against the order of vacation passed by the Estate Officer. Consequently, a further order is passed by the Estate Officer dated 19.12.2014 fixing the date of vacation of quarter on 29.12.2014 permitting the staff entrusted with vacation to take help of the police.
It is, thereafter, that the present writ petition is moved by way of lunch motion.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very strenuously tried to convince this Court that the order of discharge passed by the Government is suspended by the Tribunal and the matter is subjudice in the OA aforesaid and thereby, the petitioner is deemed to be in service, though no posting orders are given.
4. I, however, do not see any justification in entertaining the writ petition in the backdrop of brief facts mentioned above. So far as continuation of the petitioner in service, on the basis of the orders passed by the Tribunal, is concerned, if the petitioner is retained by giving a posting at Hyderabad, he will have to apply afresh for allotment of a Government quarter but that is no ground to permit the petitioner to hang on to the present Government quarter in spite of order of vacation passed by the Estate Officer. The said statutory order, therefore, has attained finality and is required to be implemented. Hence, neither on the question of law nor on equity, I find any justification to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 27, 2014 DSK