Allahabad High Court
Dr. Koshendra Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Surendra Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169617-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22015 of 2023
Petitioner :- Dr. Koshendra Pal Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking following reliefs.
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and quash the impugned order dated 5.6.2023 passed by the third respondent i.e. Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent to permit the petitioner to hold possession continue till the age of retirement of 62 years of quarter no. 4/4, Rawatpur Officers Colony, Kanpur Nagar as tenant."
3. The matter was taken on 31.7.2023 and this Court has proceeded to pass a detailed order to the following effect.
"1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 05.06.2023 passed by Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar-third respondent, whereby, petitioner is directed to vacate the official residence i.e. Quarter No.4/4, Rawatpur Officers Colony, Kanpur Nagar.
3. It transpires from the record that petitioner is presently posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Vegetable Science, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur Nagar. The said quarter/residence was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment order No.1757 dated 08.06.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 31.12.2022 passed by the In-charge Officer of the University, the petitioner has been forcibly superannuated on attaining the age of 60 years, however, the age of retirement of teachers in the University is 62 years. Thus, the petitioner alongwith other incumbent have assailed the validity of order dated 31.12.2022 in Writ A No.117030/2022, wherein, matter was heard on merit and thereafter judgement is reserved. He submits that the matter is no more res-integra as in identical circumstances, the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court has allowed the Writ A No.7847/2022 (Dr. Mithilesh Kumar Pandey and others vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein, direction was issued that petitioners are permitted to continue to serve on their respective post till attaining the age of 62 years with all consequential benefits. In this backdrop, he submits that on the one hand the judgement is reserved and on the other hand, the respondents are threatening to evict the petitioner from the official residence and in case no reprieve is accorded, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury.
4. The matter requires consideration.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of all the respondents.
6. All the respondents are accorded three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter.
7. Put up as fresh on 23.08.2023. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of order impugned dated 05.06.2023 shall remain stayed."
In response thereof, counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.
4. At the very outset, Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 14.8.2023 passed in bunch of the matters leading Writ-A No. 10622 of 2022, wherein, Writ-A No. 21022 of 2022 filed by the petitioner was also connected. By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge has allowed all the writ petitions with an observation that the petitioners are directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and shall be permitted to continue until their attaining age of 62 years.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, once the relief has already been accorded by learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition wherein the age of superannuation is already determined upto 62 years, in such situation, we are of the considered opinion that the order impugned cannot sustain. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 5.6.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to ensure the petitioner to be in possession of the house in question till attaining the age of superannuation.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
A.K.Srivastava
