- (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. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Smt. Vilet Issac and others v. Union of India and others, [1991 (1) SCC 7251 and he has invited by attention to para 7 of the said judgment which states: The Railway administration is free to evict them in accordance with the Rules, only after arrears of family pension are paid to Mrs. Violet Issac. The Railway administration will charge rent from the appellants at the rate on which the quarter had been let out to the deceased Railway employee. " In my opinion, the above observa tion of the Supreme Court cannot be said to have been laid down any general legal prin ciple that a Government servant is entitled to remain in possession of his official ac commodation even after retirement unless his retirement benefits are paid to him. The observation of the Supreme Court was made on the facts of that particular caseand hence is confined to that case alone. In my opinion a Government servant is not en titled to continue in official accommodation after retirement on the ground that his retirement benefits have not 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. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner will vacate the official accommodation with in two weeks from today failing which he will have to pay costs of Rs. 50. 000/- with in two months from todayand if he does not pay the same it will be realised as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Ghaziabad.;