B L SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner was in service of the Post and telegraph Depart ment and he retired in 1983, but he has not yet vacated the official accommodation which was given to him as a condition of service. IT is shocking that the petitioner has not yet vacated the official accommodation although 14 years have expired since he retired. The ground taken by the petitioner is that retirement benefit has not yet been paid to him.

(3.) IN my opinion, payment of retire ment benefits cannot be mixed up with the claim of the petitioner to remain in his ac commodation after retirement. The two are totally different issuesand no Government servant can claim that he is entitled to remain in occupation of the official accom modation after retirement unless retire ment benefits are paid to him. If the argu ment that a Government servant is entitled to remain in his official accommodation even after retirement till the retirement benefits are paid, is accepted then the suc cessor of such a Government servant will have no official accommodation to live inand he may be put to great hardship. Such a view cannot be countenanced by this Court. There are several cases coming up before this Court where Government servants have not vacated the official accommodations after retirementand they are filing writ petitions to get an order to enable them to continue in possession. This Court cannot approve of this practice.