A retired company driver sought restoration of electricity and water to his service accommodation after his application under Section 151 CPC was rejected by the trial court. The High Court held no law obliges an employer to provide amenities to a retired employee in unauthorised occupation and dismissed the writ petition.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10703/2024
Gopal Lal Gaur S/o Shri Onkar Lal Gaur, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Quarter No. E-106, Colony No. 2, J.k. White Cement Works, Gotan Tehsil Merta District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
J.k. White Cement Works, ( A Unit Of J.k White Cement Limited) Through Its H.r. Admin, Address J.k. White Cement Works Gotan, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Narendra Thanvi |
|---|---|
| Mr. Mahendra Thanvi | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Om Prakash Joshi with |
| Mr. Karan Joshi |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/07/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
[CW-10703/2024]
(2 of 7)
It has therefore been prayed that appropriate directions to restore the electricity connection of the petitioner and further not to discontinue the water connection be passed.
The learned Trial Court therefore, held that there was no order in existence in compliance of which the respondent could be directed to provide the residential facility or the attached benefits to the plaintiff.
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
[CW-10703/2024]
(3 of 7)
Counsel further submits that it was clear on record that although the gratuity amount of the petitioner was deposited with the Regional Labour Commissioner, he was directed not to disburse the same to the petitioner as the amount qua the user of the property was to be adjusted from the same.
In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LR’s Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao; 1990 Civil Court Cases 365 (S.C.) .
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
[CW-10703/2024]
(4 of 7)
Counsel further submits that while deciding the earlier T.I. application as preferred by the petitioner, it was specifically held that he was not entitled to any interim relief qua the respondent company so as to retain the possession of the premise in question. Once the said finding had been recorded, no application for the same relief could have been entertained and hence, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the same.
Counsel, on instructions, even made a proposal before this Court that if the petitioner vacates the premise, the respondent company shall not claim any amount qua the user of the premise for the last two years and the petitioner would also be under a liberty to get the complete gratuity amount released in his favour. Counsel submits that no objection qua the said release would be made by the company.
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
[CW-10703/2024]
(5 of 7)
at Jodhpur and even the notice of the said proceedings has been served on the petitioner. Therefore, without the said proceedings been concluded, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the premise in question nor can he be deprived of the basic amenities.
“…...this Court is of the firm opinion that the person, who is retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2022, cannot claim the temporary injunction against the employer for retaining the official accommodation because for every establishment, it is vital that the official premises be used by the current set of employees and the retired persons have to give way by vacating such accommodation.
Thus, no cause of interference is made out in the present writ petition.’’
Meaning thereby, it has already been held by this Court that the petitioner cannot claim any temporary injunction against the employer for retaining his official accommodation. This Court is now not required to go into the said question, after the said question having already been decided.
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
[CW-10703/2024]
(6 of 7)
No employer can be directed mandatorily to provide the electricity, water facility or any other amenity to an employee who already stood retired and was not entitled to retain the possession of the accommodation provided to him in terms of the service conditions.
Further, it is clear on record that till date no amount qua the user of the property has been recovered by the respondent company. So far as the notice served on the petitioner for recovery of the said amount qua the user of the property is concerned, needless to observe that if the petitioner retains the possession of the property dehors the law, the respondent Company would definitely be entitled to recover the amount qua the user of the said premise in accordance with law.
[2024:RJ-JD:27830]
[CW-10703/2024]
(7 of 7)
deserve any interference and the present writ petition is hence,
dismissed .
(REKHA BORANA),J
266-Devanshi/AbhishekK/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired employee occupying company-alloted accommodation is entitled to restoration of electricity and continuation of water supply.
Whether an application for the same interim relief after rejection of an earlier injunction application could be entertained.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat RaoReferred¶7
Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his LR's Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao; 1990 Civil Court Cases 365 (S.C.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gopal Lal Gaur S/o Shri Onkar Lal Gaur
J.K. White Cement Works (a unit of J.K. White Cement Limited) through its H.R. Admin
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
