1 2025:CGHC:50275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5267 of 2025 1 - O.P. Singh S/o P.R. Singh Aged About 72 Years Retired Cashier/ Accountant R/o Qtr. No.A-2 Rajya Parivahan Colony I.T.I. Rampur Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Manager Cidc Second Floor C.G. Kaushal Vikas Pradhikaran Old Police Head Qtr. Parisar Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba District- Korba (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Nagriya Prashasan And Vikas Vibhag Rajkishore Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For State : : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Respondent Mrs. Akanksha Verma Dabhadkar, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. The defaults raised by the Registry is hereby dropped. 2. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be 2 pleased to quash or set aside the orders dated 12.06.2025, 25.06.2025 and 22.08.2025. 10.2 direct the respondents to permit retention of government accommodation (Quarter No. A/2) by the petitioner for the duration of his present employment with Nagar Palika Parishad, Deepka, subject to payment of panel rent/ licence fee. Any other relief may also be granted in the case as may deem fit the Hon’ble Court as per the facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is filed against the impugned eviction order dated 22.08.2025 and correspondences regarding vacation of departmental accommodation (Quarter No. A/2) in the State Transport colony, ITI Korba. He further contended that the petitioner continues in government service with Nagar Palika Parishad, employment is ongoing as evidenced by service certificate and continuous representation. During regular payment and service, respondents issued orders dated 12.06.2025, 25.06.2025 and 22.08.2025 demanding vacation of accommodation without inquiry into present service or compliance with departmental norms and precedents. He further contended that the petitioner is still 3 continuing in service as contractual employee in Nagar Palika since 2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for direction to decide the representation (Annexure P/4) 5. Learned counsels for respondent no. 1 and the State opposes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P/4), in accordance with law, rules and regulations, expeditiously as soon as possible, till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima