- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7691 WP No. 4117 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 4117 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MS. S. LATHA D/O. LATE E S RAJAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RETIRED AS OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT R/A C1, TELECOM STAFF QUARTERS, 19TH MAIN, 6TH BLOCK KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560 095. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, BHARATH SANCHAR BHAVAN JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 0001. 3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR/ADMN), BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7691 WP No. 4117 of 2025 BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT, 6TH FLOOR, TELEPHONE HOUSE, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. 4. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, NO. 1, SV ROAD, HALASURU, BENGALURU 560 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. AMARESH., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DTD. 31.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-3 BEARING NO. S-III/47/SQ/SL/WKG/2020-21/08 (ANNX-H) AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN OCCUPATION OF HER QUARTERS BEARING NO. C1, TYPE-III KORAMANGALA UNTIL NOVEMBER 2026 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent-BSNL, Bangalore. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure ‘H’ dated 31.12.2024, whereby the third respondent has rejected the application dated 07.12.2024 filed by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7691 WP No. 4117 of 2025 petitioner for extension of time to vacate the official quarters. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a spinster and earlier proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for evicting the petitioner while she was under suspension. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.7577/2021. This Court by order dated 29.11.2024 directed the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of the order. Consequently, the impugned order has been passed. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has furnished a medical certificate issued by the Senior Specialist, Bowring And Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, who has advised the petitioner to avoid travel, to avoid walking and to avoid climbing stairs for restoration of the petitioner’s health. Moreover, there are many other retired employees occupying the quarters for a much longer period when compared to the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7691 WP No. 4117 of 2025 3. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Clause 10.3 of the Comprehensive Renting-Out Policy (CROP- 2020) and it is submitted that the accommodation can be retained on rent for a maximum period of six months at a stretch, subject to a total of maximum two years beyond the normal permissible period. It is submitted that the normal permissible period is 4 + 4 (eight months). Even going by the said clause, after the expiry of eight months at least six months time should be given to the petitioner. Learned Counsel would therefore submit that the six months time would come to an end during May 2025. In the meanwhile, the petitioner will make alternative arrangements and vacate the premises. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the competent authority has furnished all the reasons in the impugned order while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. It is also pointed out from the CROP-2020 at clause 10.1 (a) that the said SR Cell Policy enables the Circle heads to allow retention ‘beyond normal permissible period’ i.e., for ‘Extended - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7691 WP No. 4117 of 2025 Period’ at stations where sufficient staff quarters are vacant to meet the foreseeable requirement and there is no waitlist. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that no fault can be found in the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that even in the impugned order, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that while rejecting the request made by the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises, failing which, it would be deemed that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation and action will be taken in terms of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Once the process under the said Act is initiated, it may take a longer time for the respondents to get the petitioner vacated. 6. In that view of the matter, it would be better if the first stretch of six months is granted in terms of clause 10.3 to the petitioner to vacate from the premises. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7691 WP No. 4117 of 2025 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed, while directing the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondents on or before 31st May 2025. The petitioner will be bound by the undertaking given by this Court and no further action need be initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Public Premises Act. Needless to say that the petitioner shall pay the respondents admissible rents during the stay till the time the petitioner occupies the premises. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL