Altaf Ahmad v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1825 of 2015
1. Altaf Ahmad S/O Late Khurshid Ahmad Aged About 64 years R/O A Block Senior MIG 103-104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajnedra Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Home Department Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Estate Home Department, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Adv. for the petitioner.
For Respondent/State Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 11/05/2015 1.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
2.
This writ petition is preferred for quashment of the order dated 24-4-2015 whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the accommodation on the ground that the period of his contract appointment has already expired.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of the Court to the order dated 21-1-2015 whereby fresh contract appointment has been made for the period from 1-2-2015 to 31-1-2016. 4.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner submits a representation before the competent authority bringing into its notice about the fact that the petitioner's contract appointment is effective till 31-1-2016, the said authority shall consider and decide the petitioner's representation for allowing him to retain the official accommodation, on payment of usual charges, during continuation of the contract appointment.
5.
Till the representation is decided, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the subject accommodation.
6.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGE Gowri