Satya Narayan vs State Of U.P.And 2 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 5171 ALL

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 5171 ALL
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2015

Allahabad High Court

Satya Narayan vs State Of U.P.And 2 Others on 8 December, 2015

Bench: Sunita Agarwal




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 30
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59331 of 2014
 
Petitioner :- Satya Narayan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- D.K.Singh,V.K.Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.M.Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 383447 of 2015

The recall application has been filed by Shri D.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant supported by an affidavit of Shri Satya Narain, retired employee, the petitioner.

In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the petitioner submits that as Shri D.K. Singh was not taking interest in the matter and as such the petitioner had engaged Shri G.K. Gupta a subsequent counsel with no objection of Shri D.K. Singh and as such he was not authorized to give undertaking on behalf of the petitioner on the date of order i.e. 10.11.2014.

Vakalatnama filed by Shri G.K. Gupta with no objection of Shri V.K. Singh is on record, however, there is no endorsement of Shri D.K. Singh who was also the counsel.

In view of the said fact, the undertaking given by Shri D.K. Singh on behalf of the petitioner on 10.11.2014 can not be treated as unauthorized.

Further Shri G.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is also present. He has not been able to establish that the petitioner is not occupying the Government accommodation. On 10.11.2014 when the matter was heard, the Court was not inclined to issue direction in view of this fact.

The retiral dues of the petitioner has been with held as he has not vacated the Government accommodation even after his retirement on 31.08.2014.

In paragraph 12, 14 and 16, of the writ petition the petitioner sought to submit that no Government accommodation has been allotted in his name and further that the accommodation in which the petitioner is residing is not a departmental accommodation the petitioner is not residing within the boundaries of the respondent department. In none of the paragraphs of the writ petition it is stated by the petitioner that the premises in which he is residing is owned by him or he has taken it on rent by a private owner.

In view thereof, this Court does not find any justification to recall the order dated 10.11.2014 wherein the petitioner has been directed to vacate the disputed accommodation so that the department may proceed for computation of his retiral dues.

The recall application is misconceived and hence dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.12.2015

Mini