SHYAM SINGH Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff becoming aggrieved, from, the concurrent verdicts, pronounced, respectively by the learned Civil Judge concerned, upon, civil suit No. 238/16/2013, and, thereafter by the learned first appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2017, (i) wherethrough, both the Courts respectively, rather dismissed, the, afore civil suit, and also, the, thereagainst constituted afore civil appeal, (ii) has hence, thereagainst rather instituted before this Court, the, instant Regular Second Appeal, (iii) wherethrough, he strives to beget reversal, of, the concurrent verdicts, pronounced against him.

(2.) Even though, the plaintiff, was, through, Annexure Ext. DW1/D, allotted hence government accommodation, yet, the allotment made therethrough(s), stood subsequently cancelled, through an order, embodied in Ext. DW1/E. The plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence, vis -vis, the echoing(s), made in Ext. DW1/A, being false or fictitious, in asmuch as, the House Allotment committee, recited therein, to, make the recommendations, for, cancellation, of, the order, embodied in Ext. PW1/D, never becoming convened, nor any minutes thereof, becoming drawn, (a) thereupon, and, besides when no evidence, has become adduced, vis -vis, the Officer, who, made Ext. PW1/A, being dis-empowered, to, make it, (b) thereupon the apposite order, of, cancellation of Government accommodation, as, made through, Ext.PW1/D, stands construed hence to be validly made. Dehors, the above, even though, no reason has been recited, in, Ext. DW1/A, vis -vis, the abslutest dis-entitlement, of, the plaintiff, for, his seeking hence allotment, of, government accommodation, rather, the, only reason, as occurs therein, is, vis- Ã -vis, paucity of residential accommodation, becoming hence, visited, upon, the ministerial staff, of, the Forest Department, (c) and, without the afore assigned reason, Ext.DW1/E, may not, become fully legally empowered, hence to, sustain, the, concurrent verdicts, made, on, anvil thereon(s), hence by both the learned Courts below. Nonetheless, when apart, from, the afore echoing(s), as stand embodied, in, the validly made order, borne in Ext. DW1/E, (d) the plaintiff was also enjoined, to, demonstrate that given, his, being an employee of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation, hence, a, public entity, or a limited government company, (e) and, rather, regulated, by the appositely, drawn Article(s), of, association, his therethrough(s), hence becoming also entitled, to, seek valid allotment, of, government accommodation. Even though, Articles 52(1) of the Articles of Association, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter:

(3.) Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned verdict, pronounced, upon, Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2017, on 17/1/2018, by the learned Additional District Judge (I) Mandi, hence affirming the verdict pronounced, by, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),Court No. 3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 21/1/2017, upon Civil Suit No. 238/16/2013, is maintained and affirmed. All, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.