Dismissed

Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2024WRIA/6845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash notices for vacating government quarters. The judge found no legal infirmity in the orders, noting the petitioner lacked established rights to the specific accommodation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissed with liberty to present a fresh representation to the District Panchayati Raj Officer.

Smt. Sharda Devi vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57982

¶2

Court No. - 4

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6845 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sharda Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Aman Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.7 is hereby dispensed with.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief(s):-

¶9

"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned notice dated 14.08.2023 issued by the Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, District-Sultanpur and allotment / cancellation order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, DistrictSultanpur as contained in Annexure No.1 & 2 to this writ petition.

¶10

ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to compel the petitioner to vacate the current government quarter Rajkiya Awas No. Type II-86 (Education Colony) District Headquarter."

¶11

Shri Chauhan has produced a copy of the instructions letter dated 24.8.2024 provided by the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sultanpur enclosing therewith the copy of letters/correspondences, the same are taken on record.

¶12

Shri Chauhan has submitted on the basis of instructions that the petitioner is presently posted as Gramin Panchayati Raj

¶13

Officer at Lambhua, Sultanpur where she will be allotted a government accommodation but she is residing in a government accommodation at Bhadaiya, Sultanpur pursuant to the letter dated 01.07.2017. He has further submitted that the accommodation wherein the petitioner is residing, has been allotted to opposite party no.7 who is serving as Steno at Civil Court, Sultanpur. He has also submitted that the appropriate decision has already been taken on 25.08.2023 (annexure-2) directing the petitioner to vacate the government accommodation in question but she has not vacated such accommodation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there are some vacant accommodations at Sultanpur and the petitioner is utilizing the government accommodation at Sultanpur on account of her compelling circumstances, therefore, the opposite party no.7 may be allotted any other vacant accommodation and she may be permitted to reside in the accommodation where she is presently living.

¶15

Since the petitioner could not demonstrate any legal right holding the government accommodation in question at Sultanpur and if she applies for government accommodation at a place where she is presently serving, the same may be allotted to her and even if she has got a bonafide and genuine grievance retaining her government accommodation at Headquarter, Sultanpur, she may prefer a fresh representation to the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sultanpur but there is no infirmity or illegality in the notice dated 14.08.2023 and 25.08.2023 (annexure nos. 1 and 2, respectively), therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the aforesaid orders.

¶16

However, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioner to prefer a fresh

¶17

representation to the opposite party No. 5 i.e., the District Panchayati Raj Officer, Sultanpur ventilating her grievance and if the competent authority finds that the grievance of the petitioner is worth considerable, any appropriate order may be passed with expedition. The petitioner may prefer such representation within a week from today and an appropriate decision may be taken thereon within a period of 15 days thereafter.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.8.2024 Shravan

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shyam Kumar Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Deptt. Lko and Another

Syed Shakeel Ahmad Rizvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy., Public Works Deptt., Lko. and 2 Others

Gopal Chandra Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Sub Inspector Umesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Shankar Singh vs Union of India Ministry of Railways Thru. Secy. Railway Board and 5 Others