AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
Heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State Government, and Sri R.P.
Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.
This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3046 of 2019 dated 27.09.2019.
The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Laksar dated 20.09.2019; for a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to evict the respondent-writ petitioner
from Quarter No. S3/B08 R.B. Narain Singh Sugar Mills campus, Laksar without following the procedure established by law; and for a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith restore the electricity and water connection of the residential house.
Pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the respondent-writ petitioner’s services were terminated by order dated
20.03.2018. Contending that he had sought a reference to the Labour Court, to adjudicate on the validity of the order by which he was terminated
from service, the respondent-writ petitioner continued to reside in Quarter No. S3/B08. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Laksar, by his proceedings
dated 20.09.2019, directed the Nayab Tehsildar and SHO Kotwali Laksar Haridwar to provide help to the appellants herein to get the respondent-writ
petitioner evicted from the residential quarters.
Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that subsequently, by proceedings dated 25.09.2019, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Laksar withdrew the earlier proceedings dated 20.09.2019; and, consequently, the order dated 20.09.2019 ceased to remain in existence
thereafter.
It is admitted by learned counsel on either side that the respondent-writ petitioner continues to reside in the subject quarters as on date.
While we find considerable force in the submission of Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants, that an employee, whose order of
termination continues to remain in force for the past two years, cannot continue to reside in a staff quarter after his services have been terminated,
and mere pendency of a dispute before the Labour Court would not justify his continuance, it is unnecessary for us to delve into these aspects, since
the order impugned in the writ petition has itself been withdrawn, and the respondent-writ petitioner continues to reside in the subject quarters.
The learned Single Judge was, in our view, not justified in staying the operation of the order dated 20.09.2019 since, by the time the order under
appeal came to be passed on 27.09.2019, the order dated 20.09.2019 had already been withdrawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Laksar by his
order dated 25.09.2019.
The order under appeal is set aside and the Special Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.