Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40367 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Dixit Alias Vinod Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has appeared for the State Authorities.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayers:-
"I) Issue a writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents concerned to transfer the owner ship of the residential quarter no.A-44 Lalit Park Modi Puram Meerut expeditiously within a stipulated period under the strength of the Notification dated 21.12.1955 and Government Order dated 9.12.1978.
II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concerned not to dispossess to the petitioner from the quarter in question.
III) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
IV) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner."
The petitioner was an employee of the respondent no.6, Modi Rubber Ltd, a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act. He was appointed as an Insurance Assistance in the said Company in the year 1980 and was re-designated as senior Assistant in the year 1988. In his capacity as an employee of the said company, he was allotted House No.A-44 in Lalit Park, a residential colony of the respondent no.6. The petitioner is no longer an employee of respondent no.6. He had ceased to be its employee long back.
The petitioner alleges that he is still continues to be residing in the house allotted to him and that he should not be dispossessed from it, rather the said house be transferred in his favor.
There is no law which permits the transfer of a house allotted to any person in capacity of an employee.
The petitioner alleges that since the said house was constructed out of the funds of the State/ Central Government and he has a right to get it transferred. We are not at all convinced by the submission made by the counsel as there is nothing on record to establish that the aforesaid house was constructed out of the State/ Central Government Funds. Admittedly, the said house is the property of the respondent no.6 i.e. Modi Rubber Ltd. and the petitioner cannot continue to remain in its possession once he has ceased to be its employee and to get it transferred it his name under law. No law permits an employee to remain in possession of any official accommodation after he ceases to be an employer of the Company.
In case respondent no.6 or any person on behalf of the respondent no.6 is trying to dispossess the petitioner, the remedy available to the petitioner, if at all is by way of a civil suit.
The writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and is not tenable, it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Order Date :- 20.12.2019 C. MANI