JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Sri R.K. Khanna, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the standing Counsel. 2. Husband of the petitioner was an employee of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and he was allotted the quarter in dispute. After his retirement, he did not vacate the quarter in dispute within a reasonable period of time and his wife continued to occupy the quarter. 3. It appears from the record that the quarter in dispute is to be allotted to the employees of the Nagar Nigam only for the tenure of their service. 4. Since heirs of the deceased employee did not vacate the quarter in dispute, the petitioner was given a notice dated 13.5.2008 appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition to vacate the quarter within 15 days, on the basis of judgment dated 17.4.2008 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16993 of 2002, Naresh Dutt Sharma v. State of U.P. and others. 5. The facts of the aforesaid writ petition were that the petitioner was a tenant of quarter No. 11 situate in Nagar Nigam Colony, Banna Devi, Aligarh. The quarters were constructed by the Nagar Nigam and was occupied by the petitioner as an employee of the Nagar Nigam, Aligarh. After retirement the petitioner did not vacate the quarter and filed an application for making the quarter free hold and also deposited 25% amount for making the quarter free hold in view of Government order dated 1.12.1998 for conversion of nazul land or property into free hold. Since the quarter was not made free hold, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition. Considering the matter, the Division Bench observed as follows : “In our opinion, this is wholly irrelevant to the present case. When an employee in possession of an official accommodation retires or is transferred, he should within a reasonable time vacate the accommodation in his possession otherwise his successor will have no place to live in. Decent people vacate the accommodation soon after retirement or transfer, but in this country, decency is evidently at a discount. Case after case is coming before us in which an official who has retired or was transferred, continues to hold on to the official accommodation often even several years after the retirement or transfer. Decent people vacate the accommodation soon after retirement or transfer, but in this country, decency is evidently at a discount. Case after case is coming before us in which an official who has retired or was transferred, continues to hold on to the official accommodation often even several years after the retirement or transfer. This disgraceful practice has become rampant and now it must be put to an end.” The Court further directed as under : “We, therefore, dismiss this appeal but we also direct that the appellant will be evicted from the official accommodation in his possession by police force within one month from today unless he vacates it earlier. We further direct that throughout U.P. all official accommodations must similarly be got vacated within one month of the retirement/transfer of the employee of the Government, local bodies, public sector undertakings, statutory bodies etc. by police force unless the employee voluntarily vacates it earlier. The employees who have already retired or have been transferred more than one month before this judgment, will be evicted from the official accommodation in their possession within a week.” Contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the quarter in dispute has been allotted to the petitioner vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition. 6. She has also filed a civil suit No. 633 of 1995, Smt. Saroj Jain v. Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and another, and an interim injunction vide Annexure-6 has been granted to her. The interim injunction granted to the petitioner is as under : 7. Second contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that in similar matter, this Court has entertained writ petition No. 26720 of 2008, Smt. Vindesh Kumari v. State and others and has passed the following order : “List this matter alongwith writ petition No. 18634 of 2002 on 7th July, 2008. Learned standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Manish Goel appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They pray for and are allowed three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the next date of listing. It is made clear that on the next date, the petition may be disposed of finally. 1 and 2 and Sri Manish Goel appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They pray for and are allowed three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the next date of listing. It is made clear that on the next date, the petition may be disposed of finally. Till the next date of listing, dispossession of the petitioner from the premises in question shall remain stayed.” A perusal of the aforesaid interim order shows that Counsel for the respondents had prayed for time for filing counter affidavit which is not so in the present case. In any case, an interim order is not a precedent which may be followed. 8. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has already raised question regarding possession/allotment of the quarter in the civil suit, in which she has also been granted an injunction order, hence this Court is not inclined to pass a superficial order. The petitioner may pursue the remedy before the Court below. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand only). ————