JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Smt. Raj Kumari, seeks the following reliefs:
(a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.6.2004 communicated by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner.
(b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioner from 14, Huntley House, Agra College, Agra.
(c) Any other suitable writ, order or direction with this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(d) to award the cost of the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:
According to the petitioner, her husband Late Sri Rajendra Kumar was working as a Reader in the Department of Physics in Agra College, Agra, hereinafter referred to as "the College". It is alleged mat after being dispossessed from his ancestral house on the intervening night of 2/3.7.1997, the petitioner's husband made an application on 7.7.1997 for allotment of an official quarter in the College premises. The College Administration allotted 14, Huntley House, Agra College, Agra, hereinafter referred to as "the official quarter" to the petitioner's husband and the petitioner along with her husband and their family started living in the official quarter. Unfortunately, the petitioner's husband died on 21st November, 1997, while in service in the College. She moved an application before the Principal of the College stating therein that she did not have any shelter in Agra and, therefore, she may be permitted to live in the official quarter allotted to her late husband. The Principal vide letter dated 27.12.1999 permitted the petitioner to live in the official quarter. The petitioner thereafter made a request for extending the period of stay in the official quarter whereupon the Principal vide his letter dated 7th November, 2001 informed her that the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, who is also the ex officio Chairman of the Committee of Management of the College, hereinafter referred to as "the Chairman", vide order dated 30th October, 2001 had been pleased to permit her to retain the official quarter for a period of two years. Thereafter she approached the Chairman vide letter dated 22nd October, 2002 requesting him to extend the period for retaining of the official quarter whereupon the Chairman vide order dated 1st November, 2002, addressed to the Principal of the College, permitted the petitioner to retain the official quarter for a period of 10 years. However, vide order dated 21st June, 2004 passed by the Chairman, the earlier order dated 1st November, 2002 has been recalled/cancelled. The order dated 21st June, 2004 filed as Annexure No. 10 to the petition is under challenge in the present petition.
3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 21st June, 2004 by alleging serious allegations of mala fide against the Chairman, who has also been impleaded, in person as respondent No. 3. The allegations, accordingly to the petitioner, are that the husband of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 are real brothers. The petitioner's husband has a residential house in Agra in which her husband and respondent No. 3 along with other brother, namely, Late Sri S.C. Trivedi are the co-owners. After the death of the petitioner's mother-in-law, respondent No. 3 started harassing the petitioner and her husband and used to threaten to forcibly evict them whereupon the petitioner's husband filed Original Suit No. 402 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge(Senior Division), Agra, for restraining the respondent No. 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession. It is alleged that on receiving summons, the respondent No. 3 got furious and started harassment of the petitioner and her family by hiring unsocial elements to kill the whole family of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner herself made a written complaint on 12th June, 1997 to the District Magistrate, Agra requesting for police protection to safeguard the life of her family including herself. The respondent No. 3, who is an I.A.S. Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh, by using his influence had forcibly thrown out the petitioner and her husband from the ancestral house 2/7 Ram Nagar Colony, Agra on the intervening night of 2/3.7.1997 on account of which the petitioner's husband had to request the College authorities on 7th April, 1997 to allot the official accommodation.
4. It has further been alleged that the respondent No. 3, who is the real brother-in-law of the petitioner, had been posted as Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and as Chairman of the Committee of Management of the College, in retaliation due to personal vengeance with the petitioner had passed the impugned order dated 21st June, 2004. The petitioner has made a representation to the Chief Minister, Government of U.P. Lucknow by her letter dated 11th July, 2004. According to the petitioner, again respondent No. 3 has taken personal rivalry with mala fide intention and with ulterior motive to make the petitioner homeless as she has neither any house nor any source of income to take shelter anywhere in Agra. Her son is studying in St. Paul's Church College, Agra and her daughter is studying in Agra and she is not in a position to leave Agra. She has passed intermediate examination and has every hope of getting recommendation of the Government for her appointment in the College itself under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules in place of her husband as per her qualification for which she has made several representations but without any response.
5. The writ petition came up for consideration before the Court on 23rd July, 2004, when the Court had passed the following order:
Put up on 30.7.2004.
By that date Sri Pankaj Mishra may take instructions from the respondents as to how much time would be sufficient to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given two years time to vacate the premises in dispute.
Till further orders, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in dispute.
6. It is not clear from the record as to what happened on 30th July, 2004. The writ petition came up for consideration before the Court on 27th October, 2005 when the Court noticed that the petitioner has made serious allegations of mala fide against the Chairman of the Committee of Management of the College and has also impleaded him in person as respondent No. 3 and till that date the notice had not been issued to the respondent No. 3 to explain his position. The Court after noting the allegations of mala fide made by the petitioner against respondent No. 3 vide order dated 27th October, 2005 had directed for issuance of notice to the respondent No. 3 and stayed the operation of the order dated 21st June, 2004. The respondent No. 3 has filed his personal affidavit along with an application for vacating the order dated 27th October, 2005. Another application has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 for recall of the aforesaid order dated 27th October, 2005.
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been stated that the petitioner is a mere licencee and the Committee of Management has every right to revoke the licence of the petitioner after notice. She is keeping the official quarter since 1997 free of cost, without paying any rent and she cannot be allowed to retain the said accommodation for an indefinite period causing financial loss both to the State Government and the College, besides the growing resentment in the College staff due to non-allotment of accommodation to them. The petitioner is neither a teacher nor staff of the College, therefore, she is not entitled to withhold the accommodation of the College free of cost. The liability to pay salary and other allowances including House Rent Allowance to the teachers and other staff of the College is that of the State Government. The residential accommodation available with the College is allotted by the Committee of Management to the teachers and other staff on the basis of seniority and availability. The official quarter, namely, 14, Huntley House, Agra College, Agra was allotted to the petitioner's husband in the year 1997 and he was to attain the age of superannuation in the year 1999 but he died on 21.11.1997. She was allowed to retain the accommodation in question on considering the financial and family conditions. Several applications were received from the teachers and other staff of the College for allotment of official accommodation. Some of the applications received from the teachers of the College for allotment of the official accommodation have also been enclosed along with the counter affidavit as Annexure No. CA-1. The Principal of the College vide letter dated 21st June, 2004, brought this fact to the notice of the Chairman and requested him to cancel the allotment of the petitioner so that the same may be allotted to the eligible staff of the College, which was approved. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also stated that the petitioner has sufficient financial resources and is comfortably living since 1997 without taking any job and her application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the College as also by the Director of Higher Education, U.P. Allahabad. If she is permitted to retain the official accommodation it would set up a bad precedent and other teachers who are likely to retire may also not vacate the College premises taking advantage of the petitioner's case and it would become difficult for the Principal of the College to manage the institution. It has also been stated that when the petitioner was permitted to retain the accommodation allotted to her husband after her husband's death, there was no application of any other staff pending for allotment of the College accommodation. It has further been stated that the petitioner's daughter is a major and is taking education in a private engineering college at NOIDA whereas her son is studying in St. Paul's Church College, Agra, which is one of the best colleges of Agra and is also very expensive.
8. The respondent No. 3, who has been impleaded in person, has filed his personal counter affidavit denying the allegations of mala fide and personal vengeance levelled by the petitioner against him. He has stated that he bears absolutely no animus, ill will or prejudice against the petitioner and the order dated 21st June, 2004 has been passed by him on the basis of the reports submitted by the Principal of the College on the basis of pressing demand of allotment of quarters by teachers of the College. According to him, the house, which the petitioner claims to be the ancestral house, was owned by his father late Sri M.P. Trivedi and all the three brothers and one sister of the respondent No. 3 had relinquished their shares in the aforesaid house in favour of their mother in the year 1972. She remained its owner throughout her life and nobody raised any eyebrow against such relinquishment The mother of the respondent No. 3 executed a registered will bequeathing the house in dispute in his favour which was done in the year 1975 and the will was witnessed by his brothers. They never raised any demand or instituted a suit in any court of law impugning the genuineness or validity of the will executed by his mother in his favour. On the death of his mother, he became the exclusive owner. Suit No. 402 of 1997 had already been dismissed for want of prosecution in 1998 and no steps had been taken by the petitioner so far to substitute herself or her children in the suit which shows that the furore, which is now being raised by the petitioner is sheer afterthought. So far as the complaint made to the District Magistrate, Agra in the year 1997 is concerned it may be mentioned here that it was made at the time when his brother (petitioner's husband) was alive. However, the police did not take any action on the said complaint and the petitioner stood contented with such disposal as she did not pursue the matter any further. The allegation regarding hiring of criminals to evict the petitioner and her family is absolutely false. The idea is itself preposterous as in pursuance of the complaint no action was taken and the petitioner did not take any steps to pursue the matter any further.
9. Regarding merits of the matter, it has been stated by the respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit that on being posted as the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, he became the ex officio Chairman of the Committee of Management of the College. The allotment of the official quarters available with the College is made in accordance with the Rules for Allotment of College Quarters to the Staff Members. Under Rule 11 an occupant of the College quarter will cease -to be an occupant on expiry of his college services/on incurring any disqualification concerning the allotment rules. However, a grace period of one month may be allowed after which he shall give the possession of the College quarter to the Principal. The allotment of quarter is only a privilege. It does not create any right in the premises. It is co-terminus with the employment with the grace period of one month at the maximum. There is shortage of quarters available in the College in comparison to the strength of teachers in the institution and there is also a scramble for allotment of the College premises/quarters and, therefore, if one is allowed to hold on to the premises even after decade of cessation of employment it is bound to upset the scheme of things and create dissatisfaction amongst the employees. It has further been stated that the situation changed after the last order dated 1.11.2002 was passed by the then Chairman and taking into consideration the report of the Principal of the College and the pending applications for allotment of official quarters, he had to agree with the proposal to cancel the extension of 10 years granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither an employee nor staff of the College. Her application for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules has also been rejected both by the College and by the Director, Higher Education, U.P. Allahabad vide order dated 15.7.2004 and her further representation to the State Government has also been rejected vide order dated 4th August, 2005. The aforesaid orders remained unchallenged. She has sufficient means and funds to live a decent life and recently she has invested/deposited a sum of Rs. 6 lacs in the local post office by way of fixed deposit. She is at best a licencee and the licence can be revoked at any time. The decision for revoking the extension was taken in view of the pressing acute demand for allotment by the staff of the College as there was simmering discontentment against occupation of the house by the petitioner. The plea that the order was passed only by way of harassment to the petitioner in retaliation due to personal vengeance has been denied and all the allegations are false. The order has been passed strictly in accordance with Rules and on the basis of the facts brought to his notice by the Principal of the College. The petitioner has latched the house 14, Huntley House, Agra College, Agra without payment of any amount which is in flagrant breach of the Rules of allotment. He has all sympathies for the petitioner and her children and will not do any act, which may unsettle either her or her children in life. On the basis of aforesaid facts the respondent No. 3 also moved an application for recall of the Court's order dated 27th October, 2005 in which order this Court while noting down the serious allegations of mala fide made against respondent No. 3 has issued notices.
10. The petitioner has filed two separate rejoinder affidavits-one in reply to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the other to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, which are being referred to as the first rejoinder affidavit and the second rejoinder affidavit.
11. In the first rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has stated that she is holding the official quarter as she has been permitted by the respondents from time to time on her application and she is entitled to retain it till 2012 A.D. She is entitled to get an appointment in the College being dependent of her husband who was a Reader in the Department of Physics and died in harness. The permission has been cancelled without giving any notice or opportunity and if the service would have been granted to the petitioner then the petitioner would have been entitled to retain the official quarter till her retirement. It seems that for the purposes of the present petition, applications of the various teachers have been got moved by the answering respondents and the letter dated 21.6.2004 has been prepared to build up the present case. The Chairman being the close relative of the petitioner (Dewar) and being annoyed with her had approved the proposal. However, she is entitled to retain the house upto 2012 A.D. under order dated 1.11.2002 and the case of the petitioner and the other teachers who are likely to retire are on different footings. In the present case the earlier Principal and the Chairman permitted her to retain the house till the year 2012 A.D by passing order dated 1.11.2002 in her favour so by the impugned order she cannot be evicted in the manner as the order has been passed without providing any opportunity to her. In the second rejoinder affidavit, the plea of mala fide alleged against respondent No. 3 has been reiterated.
12. We have heard Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Amit Krishna, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 and have perused the averments made in the writ petition, its annexures, counter affidavits and the rejoinder affidavits exchanged between the parties.
13. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's husband was allotted the official quarters in the year 1997 on account of being evicted by the respondent No. 3 from the ancestral house which he was occupying and he having died in the year 1997 itself, the petitioner had been permitted to retain the house from time time lastly for a period of 10 years vide order dated 1.11.2002 passed by the Chairman. This order was cancelled/revoked by the respondent No. 3 on account of personal vengeance, rivalry and malice which he has against the petitioner. The order dated 21.6.2004 impugned in the present writ petition has been passed without any show cause notice or providing any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the said order is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that the petitioner has since been directed to be given appointment in the College on compassionate grounds by the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 30th January, 2006 and in view of the subsequent development she is entitled to continue to retain the possession of 14, Huntley House, Agra College, Agra. He, thus, submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 21.6.2004 is liable to be quashed.
14. Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however, submitted that the petitioner being the widow of Late Rajendra Prasad, who was working as Reader in the Department of Physics in the College and who died in harness on 21.11.1997, was permitted to retain the College accommodation purely on humanitarian grounds. She did not make any application for seeking compassionate appointment at that time and after more than seven years in the year 2004 she had applied for grant of compassionate appointment, which application was rejected both on merits and on its maintainability. There was pressing need for providing official accommodation/quarters to the teachers and other non-teaching staff of the College for which taking into consideration the overall situation, the Principal of the College had to report the matter to the Chairman seeking cancellation of the accommodation provided to the petitioner, who approved the same. Merely because, the respondent No. 3 happens to be close relative of the petitioner, it does not mean that the order has been passed on extraneous consideration. He further submitted that the petitioner has sufficient means to lead a decent life, which is also established from the fact that for such a long period she has not sought for any employment and provided the best available education to her children. The order dated 21.6.2004 does not call for any interference. He further submitted that the order dated 30th January, 2006 passed by the State Government granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner has been stayed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the College.
15. Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the respondent No. 3 does not have any grudge against the petitioner nor has any malice or vengeance or rivalry with her. The circumstances under which the house belonging to his mother came in the ownership of the respondent No. 3 has already been detailed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, which remains uncontroverted. Thus, the plea of malice which is founded on the basis of the House No. 2/7 Ram Nagar Colony, Agra is wholly misplaced. He further submitted that as ex officio Chairman of the Committee of Management of the College, respondent No. 3 had to take into consideration the interest of the College and looking into the fact that there were several applications of the teachers and other staff of the College for allotment of official accommodation/premises in the College which were pending, there was no other alternative but to approve the proposal sent by the Principal of the College and to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner to retain the College premises till 2012 A.D. If the petitioner's husband would have been alive he would not have been allowed to retain the official quarter allotted by the College after one month of his superannuation in terms of the Rule 11 of the Rules for Allotment of the Official Quarter and if the petitioner on humanitarian consideration retained the official quarter earlier, she cannot get any right, title or interest or claim of any vested right to continue in possession any further. At best her status is that of a licencee and the licence can be revoked at any time. She cannot claim any right which can be enforced in a court of law. He, thus, submitted that the petition be dismissed with costs as the petitioner had abused the process of law levelling the serious allegations of mala fide against the respondent No. 3, which has lowered down his reputation and prestige.
16. Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that it is not in dispute that the petitioner's husband was allotted the official quarter by the College as he was Reader in the Department of Physics at that time. The petitioner was permitted to continue in possession of the said quarter on humanitarian grounds. However, it does not mean that for an indefinite period without payment of any amount towards possession and for use and occupation she can retain the official quarter. If the College authorities had come to the conclusion that the official quarter, which had been allotted to a person, who otherwise was not entitled to retain or occupy the same and is occupying in contravention of the Rules framed by the College, is needed for allotment to the other members of the staff and non-teaching employees of the College, in order to make the best possible use of allotting it to the staff members are well within their right to cancel the permission granted to the petitioner. The petitioner being neither an employee nor a teacher in the College cannot claim any vested right to retain the possession of the official quarter in the College. For seven long years she had been permitted to continue to retain the possession, which period was sufficient enough for the petitioner to look for an alternative accommodation, more so when she had not applied for grant of compassionate appointment which application was made only on 24.11.2003 i.e. after about six years. The application had been rejected on 30.6.2004. The Director of Higher Education has also rejected the petitioner's application on 15.7.2004. The State Government has also rejected the representation/application made by the petitioner on 4th August, 2004. Thus, she was not entitled to claim any right to retain the possession of official quarter allotted by the College to her late husband. We further find that under Rule 11 of the Rules for Allotment of Official Quarters to the Staff of the College, any employee/staff/ teacher who has been allotted the official accommodation/premises/ quarters by the College is entitled to retain only for a period of one month after he is superannuated or his employment comes to an end. In the present case, the petitioner has been in possession for a long period of about seven years when the permission was revoked. Even before this Court when the writ petition was entertained the learned Counsel for the petitioner had given a statement on 23rd July, 2004 that the petitioner be given two years' time to vacate the premises in dispute, which period is going to expire on 23rd July, 2006 as such the petitioner has no vested or legal right to continue to remain in possession in respect of the official accommodation allotted to her husband. We do not find any illegality in the order dated 21st June, 2004, especially when the said order has been passed taking into consideration the pressing need and the requirement of allotment of official quarter to the existing members of the staff and other employees of the College.
17. So far as the allegations of mala fide made against the respondent No. 3 are concerned, we are satisfied that the said allegations have been made by the petitioner only to give colour to the case and to gain sympathy from the Court. The allegations of mala fide are based on the ownership of the House No. 2/7, Ramnagar Colony, Agra, the dispossession of the petitioner's husband and his family and filing of Suit No. 402 of 1997. For ready reference averments made in paragraph Nos. 4 to 7 of the writ petition are reproduced below:
4. That the petitioner's husband has a residential house in Agra itself in which her husband and the respondent No. 3 are co-owners alongwith one other brother namely late Sri S.C. Trivedi.
5. That after the death of the petitioner's mother in law the respondent No. 3 started harassing the petitioner and her husband and used to threaten to forcibly evict them. The petitioner's husband filed Suit No. 402 of 1997 on 28.5.1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra restraining the respondent No. 3 from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner's husband.
6. That on receiving summons the respondent got furious and started harassment of the petitioner and her family by hiring unsocial elements to kill the whole family of the petitioner. The petitioner herself made a written complaint to the then District Magistrate, Agra requesting for police protection to safeguard the life of herself and her family. A true copy of written complaint 12.6.1997 of petitioner to District Magistrate, Agra is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 1 to the writ petition.
7. That the respondent No. 3 is an I.A.S. Officer in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No. 3 by using his influence forcibly thrown out the petitioner and her husband from her husband's ancestral House No. 2/7, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra on the intervening night of 2/3.7.1997. The petitioner's husband requested by his letter dated 7.7.1997 to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to allot a quarter in the college. A true copy of the letter dated 7.7.1997 written by the husband of the petitioner to the respondent No. l is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE No. 2 to the writ petition.
The ownership of the said house has been duly explained by the respondent No. 3 in paragraphs 15 to 18 in his counter affidavit which have not been seriously disputed by the petitioner. For ready reference paragraphs 15 to 18 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3 are reproduced below:
15. That the contents of paragraphs No. l to 14 of the writ petition need no reply, inasmuch as they pertain to antecedent facts and are matters of record. It may, however, be stated here that the petitioner has deliberately distorted the facts pertaining to institution of Suit No. 402 of 1997 by the late husband of the petitioner, as contained in paragraphs No. 4,5,6 and 7 of the writ petition. It is absolutely false to allege that the house involved therein was an ancestral house. It may be stated here that the house was owned by the late father of the deponent, Sri M.P. Trivedi. All the three brothers and one sister of the deponent had relinquished their share in the aforesaid house in favour of their mother in 1972. She remained its owner through out her life. Nobody raised any eyebrow against such relinquishment.
16. That the late mother of the deponent executed a registered will bequeathing the house in dispute to the deponent. It was done in 1975. It is, indeed, significant to mention here that the aforesaid will was witnessed by the brothers of the deponent. They never raised any demur or instituted a suit in any court of law impugning the genuineness or validity of the aforesaid will.
17. That, thus, it is clear that the aforesaid will was a genuine document. On the death of the mother of the deponent on 17.5.1995, the deponent became its exclusive owner.
18. That the aforesaid suit, viz. Suit No. 402 of 1997, was dismissed for non-prosecution in 1998. Consequent upon the death of the brother of the deponent no steps were taken by the petitioner to substitute herself or her children in the suit. Thus, furore, which is now being raised by the petitioner, is sheer after thought. The aforesaid order has become final.
These averments have been dealt with by the petitioner in paragraph 14 of her second rejoinder affidavit which is reproduced below:
14. That the contents of paragraph No. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit is not admitted as stated, the petitioner has placed correct facts in a straight forward manner in the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 wants to grab the entire property of the petitioner's in-laws so the suit was filed by the husband of the petitioner and till date the respondent No. 3 is having grudge with the petitioner. The petitioner is under such a threat that she even could not dare to take proper steps in the said suit but the respondent No. 3 is regualrily having a revengical attitude. The authorities of the college under pressure of respondent No. 3 so they do not dare to help the petitioner. The averments made in paragraph No. 1 to paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition are reiterated.
18. From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has neither denied nor disputed the devolving of the house No. 2/7 Ram Nagar Colony, Agra to the respondent No. 3. Thus the petitioner has miserably failed to establish the whole plea of mala fide against respondent No. 3. So far as the filing of the suit is concerned, it has also been dismissed for want of prosecution and if the petitioner was serious for prosecuting the suit she would have got herself substituted after the death of her husband which for reasons best know to her she did not do. Thus, the allegations of mala fide made by the petitioner against respondent No. 3 have not been proved by any cogent material on record. We, therefore, reject the allegations of mala fide made against the respondent No. 3 and in order to ensure that the petitioner does not take any undue advantage of the order dated 27.10.2005m which the allegations of mala fide made by the petitioner against the respondent No. 3 have been noted by the Court, we clarify it that the same represented an ex-parte version on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition which after the exchange of affidavits have been found to be false.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, we make it clear that we have not adjudicated upon the question of compassionate appointment of the petitioner.
20. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that the petitioner be permitted to continue to hold the official quarter till 31st December, 2006. The petitioner has already continued in possession for about 9 years and as Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner on 23rd July, 2004 had only sought two years' time to vacate the premises in question, we deem it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to retain the possession of 14, Huntley House, Agra College, Agra till 30th June, 2006. However, she will be liable to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the said accommodation at the same rate on which her husband was liable to pay for the entire period during which she had continuously been in use and occupation of the said accommodation.