Okolpita Bhattacharjee vs Indian Air Force Educational And Cultural Society Thr

Heard on the question of admission.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following relief :-

That, the impugned order contained in Annexure P-1, P-2 and P-3 may kindly be qu shed with all consequential effects and exonerating the

petitioner from all the charges, the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the petitioner to be continued in service as Principal of the No.1, Air

Force School Gwalior and permit the petitioner's occupation of the Principal's residence No.1 Air Force School Gwalior.

The respondents may also be directed to pay entire back wages treating her on duty including the difference of salary for the suspension period.

The cost of the petition be awarded to the petiti ner.

Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner.

The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that petitioner was working as Principal of the No.1, Air-Force School,

Maharajpura, Gwalior. Her services were terminated and against this termination order, she has already preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority which is still pending. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, an order of eviction under Section 5 (1) of the Public Premises

(Eviction of Un-authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short ""Act, 1971"") dated 16.05.2018 has been passed on the ground that since the petitioner has

been dismissed from service with effect from 17.06.2018, therefore, now she is in an unauthorized occupation of the Public Premises. It is submitted

that since the appeal against the termination of her services is pending before the Appellate Authority, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that

her termination order has attained finality and under these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is in an unauthorized occupation of public

premises. Apart from the above submissions, various other submissions were also made.

The order of eviction passed u/S. 5(1) of Act, 1971 is an appealable order and appeal lies before DistrictPradeshJudge.Itissubmitted that the remedy

of appeal u/S. 9 of Act, 1971 would not be an efficacious remedy as the eviction order has been pass only on the ground that the services of the

petitioner have been terminated and the order of termination of services is under challenge before the Appellate Authority.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

So far as the eviction of the petitioner is concerned, it is clear that against the order of termination, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the

Appellate Authority which is still pending. As the order of eviction of the petiti ner from the Public Premises has been passed as a consequence of

ermination of her service, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner may file an application before the Appellate Authority

seeking stay of the eviction. In case the petitioner files an application for stay of eviction order before the Appellate Authority by 16.06.2018, then the

same shall be decided by the Appellate Authority by passing a speaking order within five days from thereafter. In case the application is filed by

16.06.2018 for stay of eviction of the petitioner from the public premises, then it is directed that the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for

evicting the petitioner from the premises till her application for grant of stay is decided by the Appellate Authority or 21.06.2018, whichever is earlier

or the petitioner may avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal u/S. 9 of Act, 1971.

In this petition, petitioner has also challenged her termination order. Since the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy provided under the

law and the appeal is still pending, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that at this stage it would not be appropriate for the Court to look

into the grounds raised by the petitioner challenging her termination order.

Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal after taking into consideration all the grounds which will be raised by the

petitioner before the Appellate Authority without taking into consideration the disposal of this petition because the petition is being disposed of without

considering the merits of the submissions challenging the termination order. Since this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself without

considering the merits of the case, therefore, the Appellate Authority shall be under an obligation to consider each and every ground, which will be

raised by the petitioner in the appeal.

It is made clear that this Court has neither considered the entitlement of the petitioner to retain the accommodation nor has considered the grounds for

challenging the termination order. Interim protection from eviction for limited period has been granted purely on humanitarian ground therefore the

application for stay from eviction and the appeal shall be decided by the Appellate Authority without getting influenced /prejudiced by this order.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.