The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition challenging notices for vacation of government quarters. Ruling on the petitioners' undertaking to vacate within one month, the court directed them to vacate the quarters by that period.
Petitioners directed to vacate the quarters within one month from today.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.1151 of 2019
Versus
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Adv. : Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Adv.
4/08.11.2019 This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the communication dated 09.02.2019 & 11.02.2019 have been sought to be kept in abeyance as because, according to the petitioners, after the death of their fathers in harness, their cases for appointment on compassionate ground have been considered by the High Court by passing a direction for appointment, but as yet, no appointment order has been issued and in the meanwhile, notice of vacation from the quarters has been given.
Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the respondent-Ramgarh Cantonment Board submits that the contention as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is direction passed by this Court for appointment on compassionate ground, is not correct as because, this Court had not directed for appointment rather the direction has been passed while disposing of the writ petition to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground and when the consideration has not been taken within the period as directed by this Court, a contempt case has been filed.
In the meanwhile, the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground has been considered, in which, the petitioners have not found eligible to be appointed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in course of argument, submits that the petitioners will vacate the quarters within the period of two months.
Mr. Roy, on instruction submits that the petitioners are occupying the quarters since the year 2012 and since it is the Government quarter, the other staffs are waiting for its allotment, as such, one month time, if allowed, the respondents would not be in difficulty.
Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quarters would be vacated within the period of one month.
In view thereof, as has been undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the period of vacation of quarters, i.e., the period of one month, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid direction.
The petitioners are directed to vacate the quarters within the period one month from today.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking stay on vacation notices can be disposed of on the undertaking of vacating government quarters within one month.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abhay Shankar Prasad & Ors.
Union of India, through the Director General
The Principal Director, Defence Estate
The President, Ramgarh Cantonment Board
The Chief Executive Officer, Ramgarh Cantonment Board
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court