Sagar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8617

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1683 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sagar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

It has been submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Assistant in the office of Deputy Director, Sanskrit Pathshalayen, Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya under Dying in Harness Rules by means of letter dated 21.10.2020 The petitioner had applied for allotment of official accommodation and Awas No.1, Norma colony, Civil Line-1 was allotted in favour of Ms. Priyanka Paswan, working as Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director of Education (Basic) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and looking to the difficulty being faced by the petitioner in as much as his house had been acquired by the State by means of order dated 24.3.2023 the allotment made in favour of Ms. Priyanka Paswan was cancelled and the petitioner was allotted the said accommodation for a period of one year for which he was to hand over the vacant possession of the said accommodation to Ms. Priyanka Paswan. Looking into the application made by the petitioner for allotment of the house and, especially, looking to the fact that his own house has been acquired by the State the petitioner was allowed to occupy house No.1 in Normal Colony for a period of one year. But after expiry of the period of allotment the petitioner did not hand over the vacant possession to Ms. Priyanka Paswan and, hence, another order was passed on 10.4.2024 by Assistant Director Education (Basic) cancelling the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the same.

¶8

It has further been recorded that the said allotment was made only for a period one year for which the petitioner was to hand over the vacant possession of the said house to Ms. Paswan, but he had failed to do so. Accordingly, he was asked to immediately vacate the said accommodation failing which legal proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner.

¶9

It is in aforesaid circumstances, that the petitioner has

¶10

challenged order dated 10.4.2024 and seeks further direction to the respondents not to compel the petitioner to vacate Awas No.1, Normal Colony, Civil Line, Ayodhya.

¶11

In support of his submissions the only argument raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner is in dire need of that accommodation considering the fact that his house has been acquired and demolished. The petitioner could now show any provisions whereby he has right to retain an official accommodation for a period exceeding what has been stated in the allotment letter. In the allotment letter there is no dispute that the period of allotment was clearly considered and it was stated to be one year and it was further provided that the said accommodation will be reverted back to Ms. Priyanka Paswan after expiry of one year.

¶12

The petitioner ought to have complied with the order dated 10.4.2024 and 23.4.2024 in as much as the said order was never assailed by him before any higher form or court. It is because the petitioner declined to vacate the said allotted house that the impugned order has been passed cancelling his allotment directing him to immediately hand over the vacant possession of the resident to Ms. Priyanka Paswan.. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in as much as even previously allotment was already made in favour of Ms. Priyanka Paswan and it was only looking into the immediate necessity for accommodation of the petitioner that he was given allotment letter for a period of one year. The petitioner should have complied with the allotment letter and his failure to do so necessitated passing of the impugned order dated 10.4.2024. Despite passing of the said order, he has not vacated the said premises for last 10 months and has approached this Court only in the month of February, 2025. A government servant is expected to comply with the order of the superior and obey the same. He cannot act as a private litigant to retain a rental property.

¶13

Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons no interference can be made in the impugned order dated 10.4.2024. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

The petitioner should comply with the said order with expedition and in case he vacates the said residence within a period of next two weeks, no further disciplinary proceedings shall be taken against him, failing which the respondents are directed to initiated legal proceedings against the petitioner.

¶15

In case petitioner gives any application for allotment of an alternative accommodation the same may be considered only

¶16

after the petitioner vacates the accommodation allotted to him vide order dated 24.3.2023.

¶17

It shall be open for the respondents to impose market rent/penal rent upon the petitioner for the period of over retention of the accommodation by him in accordance with law.

¶18

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 11.2.2025 RKM.

¶20

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

Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mulhe Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko and Another

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas ANUBHAG-4 Lko. and Another

Dr. Gauri Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sartaj Mishra Pno. No. 932310055 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Dharmeshwar Singh Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare and 4 Others