Sehdev Gautam 8060657, A/Supervisor, Military Farm, Pathankot vs Union of India and others

R.S. Madan, J.

The petitioner who was working as an Assistant Supervisor at Military Farm, Pathankot received transfer orders for MF, Jalandhar, EBS, Hisar and MF, Katihar (Bihar). The petitioner perused the matter before the appropriate authority Military Farm Department, which issued three letters dated 21.7.1994, 17.11.1994 and 16.11.1996 stating that individual Assistant Supervisor, Sehdev Gautam will not be relieved on permanent posting unless and until all his previous dues and service book is completed and duly audited. In view of the said letters the petitioner continued to be posted at Military Farm, Faridkot.

The petitioner did not comply with the aforesaid directions issued to him. It was on 9.11.2000 that the petitioner was asked to vacate the Quarter No. 3J Type, (Opposite to Kapoor Hospital) Military Farm, Pathankot, allotted to him. This order was challenged by the petitioner vide representation dated 22.11.2000 copy of which is attached herewith as Annexure P2. The said order was set aside by notice dated 21.12.2000 stating therein that the order dated 9.11.2000 be treated as null and void.

Subsequently, an eviction order dated 30.12.2000 was served upon the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the prescribed procedure under law was not followed by the Estate Officer and he was directed to vacate the premises vide Annexure P3. The petitioner approached the Estate Officer, Military Farm, Pathankot, for personal hearing against the said eviction order dated 30.12.2000 but was denied the hearing. The petitioner filed an appeal against the eviction order dated 30.12.2000 before the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, who vide order dated 14.12.2006 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

It is pertinent to mention here that on 28.1.2003, vide Annexure P4, the petitioner was prematurely retired from service in public interest. The said premature retirement order was received by the petitioner on 6.8.2004. His appeal dated 27.8.2004 and the representation dated 24.8.2006 against the order of premature retirement was pending.

The petitioner has now challenged the orders of eviction from the Government premises on the ground that his appeal dated 27.8.2004 against the order of premature retirement is pending, therefore, he may be allowed to occupy the Government accommodation.

A Government accommodation is available to an employee where he is posted. Admittedly, the petitioner has not joined the place of his new posting because he did not clear his dues and his service book was not completed and audited. It was on account of his noncooperating attitude that he was prematurely retired from service vide order dated 28.1.2003 Annexure P4 in public interest.

From the facts appearing in the case, it is manifest that the petitioner has been an indisciplined official working with the defence forces. He has no respect for the authorities and has been disobeying the orders of his superiors. Merely his appeal against the orders of premature retirement is pending before the appellate Court, does not give him the right to continue to occupy the Government accommodation, where he is not posted.

We do not find any infirmity in the orders of ejectment dated 30.12.2000 (Annexure P3) passed by Estate Officer as well as of the District Judge, Gurdaspur dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P8) passed under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971. Since the petitioner has been prematurely retired from service in public interest, therefore, order dated 28.1.2003 (Annexure P4) does not call for any interference of this Court in the writ jurisdiction.

No merit. Dismissed.