Kanhaiya Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to permit him to retain the Type-I (One room set) accommodation No.60-62 for further one year.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a regular Class-IV employee of the respondent’s department and he retired on superannuation on 31.08.2020. The petitioner has retained the accommodation, which was provided to him during his service and for the last three years, the same has not been vacated by him.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is constructing a house in Pirumadara, Himmatpur Block, Ramnagar, District Nainital, which would be completed within a year. Petitioner has also annexed the photograph, which shows that the foundation has been laid by the petitioner.

From the said photograph, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, it appears that the foundation has been laid by the petitioner much earlier in the year 2020 and for the last three years, there is not a slight construction raised over the foundation.

On the last date i.e.29.02.2024, instruction was called from the respondents-State as to whether the State may accommodate the petitioner for a further period of one year.

Today, learned State Counsel has passed on instruction to this Court, which is taken on record. According to which, it reflects that earlier, petitioner has already been granted time by the respondent authorities, but, there are certain complaints that the petitioner is not keeping a decent behavior in the colony, where he was given accommodation even after his retirement.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is not sincere to complete the construction. Had it been the case, for the last three years, said construction would have reached to a certain level which would justify this Court to grant him to some time to retain the accommodation to complete the construction. But, record reflects otherwise as stated above.

In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter by invoking its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.