Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2596 (ALL)

Suresh Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-08-25

RAJAN ROY

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy,J. Heard Shri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition was filed in the year 2010, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to deduct the house rent allowance from the salary of the petitioner and also to refund the amount along with the interest which have been deducted from the salary of the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a jeep driver in the Cooperative Department (Collection) at Aligarh since 1971 in the office of the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P.Aligarh.The petitioner took a house on rent at the rate of Rs.20/- per month from the District Federation Limited in the month of January 1974 wherein he is residing ever since then. I paragraph 6 of the writ petition it has been categorically mentioned that the ownership of the house was transferred from the District Federation Limited to Pradeshik Cooperative Federation ( in short 'P.C.F.') and the petitioner has been regularly paying the rent to the P.C.F. also. On 10.6.1998 a letter was sent by the new owner for vacating the premises to the District Assistant Registrar who in turn issued a notice dated 27.6.1998 to the petitioner for vacating the said premises.The petitioner filed O.S.No.338 of 1998 pursuing a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit property without adopting legal process and for a temporary injunction. On 20.7.1998, a temporary injunction was granted by the learned trial court in favour of the petitioner and thereafter by order dated 27.2.2003 the suit was decreed whereby the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from his possession over the suit property without adopting due legal process. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not vacated the said premises and the house rent allowance is being deducted by the respondents from the salary of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is an employee of the P.C.F. He is residing in the premises owned by the employer and is liable to pay the rent. It is inexplicable as to how a writ of mandamus could be issued in favour of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner is an employee of the P.C.F. He is residing in the premises owned by the employer and is liable to pay the rent. It is inexplicable as to how a writ of mandamus could be issued in favour of the petitioner. In the alternative the learned counsel contended that the accommodation in question has not been allotted to him connection with his employment but he is in possession thereof from the time it was owned by the District Federation Ltd., therefore, there is no question of deduction from his salary.If this argument is to be accepted, then the remedy lies before the lower court as it appears to be a landlord tenant dispute. No such relief can be granted in this petition. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to seek such other remedy as may be available to him in law.