ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of order/communication dated 25th February, 2009 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of Squadron Leader, Air Force Station, Bihta for respondent no. 5, whereby she has been intimated that she cannot be absorbed in the services of the Indian Air Force, and further, she cannot be allowed to continue to stay in service accommodation at Air Force Station, Bihta with effect from 1.4.2009. She has also assailed the validity of the show cause notice dated 6th February, 2009 (Annexure-2), whereby she has been asked to vacate the temporary accommodation with effect from 1.3.2009, which was provided to her on humanitarian ground for two years in the year 2000, otherwise she will be declared to be in unauthorized occupation and action will be initiated against her for vacating the aforesaid accommodation. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Loha Kant Jha, was enrolled in the services of Indian Air Force on 25th November, 1982, and while he was still in the services of Indian Air Force on the post of Corporal, he was medically boarded out on the ground that he was suffering from schizophrenia. Consequently, by an order dated 10.8.1998 (Annexure-5) he was discharged from service with effect from 29.8.1998 on medical ground. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that against the aforesaid order of discharge and/or for the consequential benefits, the husband of the petitioner namely Ex-Corporal Loha Kant Jha had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in C.W.J.C. No. 10553 of 2009, but the reliefs sought for on behalf of the husband of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition were not entertained by this Court and the writ petition was finally permitted to be withdrawn by an order dated 9th February, 2010. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of discharge of the husband of the petitioner from service on medical ground in the year 1998, she filed her representation for her appointment on compassionate ground/humanitarian ground. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of discharge of the husband of the petitioner from service on medical ground in the year 1998, she filed her representation for her appointment on compassionate ground/humanitarian ground. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and by an order dated 23rd December, 1999 (Annexure-6) issued by respondent no.5 she was appointed/engaged on a casual/temporary post of Aaya at Air Force Station, Bihta and, accordingly, she joined the post on 10th January, 2000 at Medical Inspection Room of Air Force Station, Bihta in the State of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has fairly submitted that though the petitioner was appointed/ engaged on the post of Aaya, but she was not paid the prescribed pay scale rather a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month only was paid to the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of her engagement on the post of Aaya and in view of the fact that her husband was suffering from ailments, she was allotted accommodation at Air Force Station at Bihta, where she along with her husband and family members have been living till date. 6. While the petitioner was still working on the post of Aaya, a show cause notice dated 6th February, 2009 (Annexure-1) was issued to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why she should not be terminated from service due to her poor performance of duty on the post. It has nowhere been stated in the writ petition or the supplementary affidavit that on receipt of the show cause notice dated 6th February, 2009, (Annexure-1) the petitioner ever shown her cause disputing the correctness of the allegation about her poor performance of duty. By another show cause notice dated 6th February, 2009 (Annexure-2), she was asked to vacate the temporary accommodation with effect from 1.3.2009. Finally, by the impugned order dated 25th February, 2009 (Annexure-3) she has been removed from temporary service on the post of Aaya and allotment of accommodation has also been cancelled with effect from 1.4.2009. 7. By another show cause notice dated 6th February, 2009 (Annexure-2), she was asked to vacate the temporary accommodation with effect from 1.3.2009. Finally, by the impugned order dated 25th February, 2009 (Annexure-3) she has been removed from temporary service on the post of Aaya and allotment of accommodation has also been cancelled with effect from 1.4.2009. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 25th February, 2009 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no.5 is in violation of section 47 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (in short 1995, Act only) and, therefore, it is fit to be set aside by this Court. He has also placed reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Bhagwan Dass and Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [ (2008) 1 SCC 579 ], and V. Sivamurthy & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesy & Ors. [(2009) 1 All India Services Law Journal ( SC) 69]. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present application and has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. 9. A counter affidavit as also two supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been admitted that Ex-Corporal Loha Kant Jha, the husband of the petitioner, was enrolled in the services of Indian Air Force on 25th November, 1982 and he was discharged from service with effect from 28.8.1998 as he was found medically unfit for further service in Indian Air Force on account of suffering from the disease of Schizophrenia. It has been stated that claim for disability pension made by the husband of the petitioner was rejected by the competent authority. It has been asserted by the respondents that after discharge of the husband of the petitioner on medical ground, the petitioner claimed for a permanent civilian job on compassionate ground, but her claim was rejected on merit. However, she was appointed/engaged on temporary basis on the post of Aaya and she was also allotted temporary accommodation in the year 2000 for two years on humanitarian ground. However, she was appointed/engaged on temporary basis on the post of Aaya and she was also allotted temporary accommodation in the year 2000 for two years on humanitarian ground. It is also the case of the respondents that her employment was extended from time to time considering the ailments of the husband of the petitioner, an Ex-Airman. According to the respondents, while the petitioner was working on the temporary post of Aaya, her services were found not satisfactory and she was given warning on several occasions with a hope that her performance shall improve, but she failed to show any improvement in her functioning. Ultimately, by the impugned order she has been disengaged from service with effect from 1.4.2009 and, accordingly, she was directed to vacate the service accommodation, which was provided to her originally for two years, but was subsequently extended from time to time on humanitarian ground. 10. After having heard the parties and on consideration of materials available on the record, this Court finds that it is true that the husband of the petitioner was enrolled in the services of Indian Air Force in the year 1982 and finally in the year 1998 he was declared medically unfit by the Medical Board as he was suffering from Schizophrenia. The order of discharge as also consequential orders were challenged by the husband of the petitioner before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10553 of 2009 but ultimately, that writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 9.2.2010, and therefore, that aspect of the matter has attained its finality. 11. From the materials available on the record, this Court further finds that claim of the petitioner for her appointment on any permanent civilian post due to discharge of her husband from service on medical ground was not entertained, rather it was rejected. This aspect of the matter was never challenged either by the petitioner or by her husband before any higher authority/court. However, this Court finds that on a purely humanitarian ground the petitioner was appointed/engaged on the post of Aaya at a fixed wage/ honorarium of Rs. 1,000/- per month only. This aspect of the matter was never challenged either by the petitioner or by her husband before any higher authority/court. However, this Court finds that on a purely humanitarian ground the petitioner was appointed/engaged on the post of Aaya at a fixed wage/ honorarium of Rs. 1,000/- per month only. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to show either any law or any circulars/orders/guidelines having statutory force, which can be said to have been violated by the respondents, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for her employment under indigent circumstances. The appointment of the petitioner on casual/temporary post of Aaya on a fixed wage/honorarium of Rs. 1,000/- per month appears to have been made purely on humanitarian ground and not by virtue of any circulars/orders or guidelines having any statutory force. Since the petitioner was engaged on the post of Aaya, a purely temporary post, she was provided a temporary accommodation originally for two years in the year 2000, but taking into consideration the health of the husband of the petitioner, the allotment of accommodation was extended from time to time and ultimately, she has been asked to vacate the premises with effect from 1.4.2009. 12. The respondents have brought one more relevant fact on record that the building in question, where the petitioner and her family members are living is an old building constructed as far back as in the year 1965-66 and now this building has been declared to be no longer fit for habitation and it has been recommended for demolition to avoid any mishap. A certificate issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Air Force Station, Bihta declaring the building in question not fit for habitation has been brought on record as Annexure A to the supplementary counter affidavit. 13. However, by way of supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents have brought on record an order dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-B) whereby arrears of rent and allied charges has been calculated for building in question and against the petitioner from the financial years 2000-2001 to November, 2012, a total demand of Rs. 55096/- has been raised. 14. Though this Court may have all sympathy for the petitioner and her husband, who was discharged from service on medical ground, but the fact remains that she was never appointed on any permanent post. 55096/- has been raised. 14. Though this Court may have all sympathy for the petitioner and her husband, who was discharged from service on medical ground, but the fact remains that she was never appointed on any permanent post. Under the extant circular/letter of the Indian Air Force, she is/was not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground of discharge of her husband from service on medical ground, since he was found fit for civil employment but unfit for further service of Indian Air Force, as per findings of the Medical Board, which has been brought on record as Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit. 15. Apparently, on humanitarian ground the petitioner was engaged on a purely temporary post of Aaya on a fixed wage of Rs. 1,000/- per month, and she was also allotted a temporary accommodation for two years only in the year 2000, where she is still living. On humanitarian ground the petitioner cannot be permitted to occupy the temporary accommodation for ever. She is required to find out an alternative accommodation for herself and for her family. She has been given sufficient time for finding out the alternative accommodation. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner will not salvage the case of the petitioner since the facts and circumstances in the present case are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of those cases. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner regarding violation of Section 47 of 1995 Act are completely misconceived and not tenable. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a person suffering from any disabilities enumerated in 1995 Act. She cannot claim any benefit under 1995 Act. Further this Court finds that in a case of casual or temporary engagement, there cannot be any direction issued to the authority concerned for regularization of service of the petitioner in view of law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Anr. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. [ (2006) 4 SCC I ( particularly para 43 and 53]. 16. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. [ (2006) 4 SCC I ( particularly para 43 and 53]. 16. Consequently, this petition has to fail, but the actions of the respondents in raising a demand for arrears of rent and allied charges for occupying the quarter in question since the year 2000-2001 against the petitioner at this belated stage by notice contained in Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents cannot be held to be justified. Admittedly, the petitioner was provided engagement on the post of Aaya on humanitarian ground, where she was paid a paltry sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month only. While the petitioner was in service, no rent was ever charged/ demanded. Suddenly, after termination of her engagement on the post of Aaya, the respondents have raised the claims of rent and allied charges against the petitioner, which cannot be said to be justified. Therefore, the notice/order dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-B) issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, AGE (I) Air Force Station, Bihta is hereby set aside. The petitioner is hereby directed to vacate the premises in question on or before 30.4.2013. The respondents are hereby restrained from charging any amount towards rent and allied charges from the petitioner till 30.4.2013. If the petitioner does not vacate the premises in question on or before 30.4.2013, then the respondents shall be at liberty to take all coercive measures for getting the premises in question vacated from the occupation of the petitioner, and her family members. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition stands dismissed, subject to direction regarding non-charging of rent, etc. from the petitioner with respect to premises in question under her occupation till 30.4.3013. 18. Interim orders of stay dated 8.7.2009 and 20.7.2009 passed by a Bench of this Court stand vacated.