- (1.) AT the time when Rihand dam was being constructed the State Administration of Uttar Pradesh necessarily had to make provisions for accommoda tion for staff and the labour engaged in the construction of the Dam. These accom modations were basically temporary in nature with a limited time span. The petitioner as he was an employee of the telephone communication department, Government of India, which facility was provided in the area, was also allotted a quarter as part of the pool to the Government of India. The allotment initially was for three years. The respondents required the petitioner to vacate the quarter al lotted to him. There is no issue on record that the accommodation allotted only makes the petitioner a licensee. The contention of the petitioner in the writ petition is that he has made a lot of investment and improvements in the quarter allotted to him. Even if this submission of the petitioner is correct, of any improvement or investment he has made in an allotted quarter, it was entirely at the pleasure and risk of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot receive a proprietory right on the quarter. The petitioner's status will remain as an allottee of the quarter. The counter-affidavit of the respondents shows that the petitioner has been posted put of district Sonbhadra and yet he continues to occupy this allotted quarter. Specifically in para graphs 5 and 6 of the counter-affidavit the State respondents have revealed that the petitioner has drawn the State Administration into litigation. This in itself is bad. Notwithstanding this litigation, the Court certifies that the petitioner has no right over the quarter.
(2.) THERE is no public duty or obligation of the State respondents to continue to provide a facility to the petitioner who is otherwise an employee of the Government of India and the allotment was to be compatiable for the period of his tenure in the district regard being had to the circumstances of period of joining time but at the discretion of the respondents. The Court does not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 24 January, 1994 is discharged. After this order was dictated learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded with the Court to grant time to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation. The Court enquired on how much time will be needed by the petitioner. It was indicated that time until June, 1997 be considered as the children are studying. The petitioner may have time until June, 1997 provided he deposits with the respondent No. 1, the Executive Engineer, Riband Dam, Civil Division, Pipari, Sonbhadra, three times of the rent which he is paying at present as damages, within two months from today. If the petitioner does not keep this condition, he will be liable to be evicted from the accommodation within two months from today. Petition dismissed. .;