GOURA MOHAN GIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, they challenge the legality of the eviction order at Annexure 6 passed by the Estate Officer, opposite party No. 3 affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, opposite party No. 4 as per the order at Annexure 7.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 while in employment was permitted by his employer Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant to occupy quarters No. A/ 94-JBR (previous No. Qr. 34, Type-VIII) in Sector 5, Rourkela. He came to occupy the said quarters from 8-9-1959. After his retirement from service on 31-8-1984, he was permitted to occupy it for a grace period of two months and after expiry of the said two months, permission granted to occupy the quarters was revoked. As he did not vacate, the employer directed him to vacate the premises by registered notice dt. 2-1-1985 which did not yield any result. The employer consequently treated petitioner No. 1 as an unauthorised occupant with effect from 31-10-1984 and filed P. P. Case No. 8085 of 1986 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Estate Officer, opposite party No. 3 for eviction. Petitioner No. 2 was subsequently added as opposite party No. 2 in the said eviction case on her own prayer Petitioner No. 1 submitted his cause resisting the eviction on the grounds (i) the quarters in question is not a public premises, (ii) the Estate Officer opposite party No. 3 is not competent to deal with the matter in absence of valid appointment by the appropriate authority, (iii) his wife, petitioner No. 2 also being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited was entitled to allotment of the said quarters after his retirement, and (iv) dependants of many retired employees who are in employment were given the benefit of occupying the same quarters. Petitioner No. 2 in her separate cause contended that she being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited shall be deemed to be an allottee of the quarters in question by virtue of her eligibility and is entitled for regularisation of the quarters in her favour.

(3.) The Estate Officer by his order dt. 7-12-1989 as per Annexure 6 overruled the objections raised by the petitioners and held that the occupation of the quarters by petitioner No. 1 after his retirement is without any authority and in absence of any allotment in favour of petitioner No. 2 in respect of the quarters in question, she has also no case. Accordingly, he directed eviction. Against the said order, petitioners preferred P. P. Appeal No.13 of 1989 before the District Judge, Sundargarh who after hearing has dismissed the appeal.