1 CGHC010365982026 2026:CGHC:40575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4778 of 2026 O.P Singh S/o P.R. Singh Aged About 73 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 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 3 - Additional Collector Korba, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (R) Korba, Distt - Korba (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar Korba, Distt - Korba (C.G.) 6 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (C.I.D.C. Ltd.) Through Its Manager, Second Floor C.G., Kaushal Vikas Pradhikaran Bhawan, Old Police Headquarters Parisar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Smt Lata Tandon Assistant Grade - I I, Office Of District And Session Judge, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A, Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD ORDER ON BOARD 17.09.2026 2 1. The present petition is directed against the impugned orders dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) and 23.07.2026 (Annexure P/2), passed by Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 3, respectively, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the quarter within three days. The order dated 11.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) was never served upon the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court twice by filing W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025. In W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025, this Hon’ble Court directed Respondent No. 6 herein to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner seeking retention of the quarter and protection against eviction. Thereafter, in W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025, taking into consideration the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition, this Hon’ble Court again directed Respondent No. 6 herein to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation regarding retention of the quarter and also protected the petitioner from eviction. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a copy of the order dated 11.12.2025 and preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 2, which was subsequently transferred to Respondent No. 3 for adjudication. Respondent No. 3, vide order dated 23.07.2026, dismissed the said appeal. Both the impugned orders are contrary to law and are liable to be set aside, as the same have been passed in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1974. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 11.12.2025 and 23.07.2026 are wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1974. It is submitted that the order dated 11.12.2025 was never served upon the petitioner and, in the meantime, the petitioner was constrained to 3 approach this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025. Learned counsel further submits that, in W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025, this Hon’ble Court directed Respondent No. 6 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation seeking retention of the quarter and protection against eviction. Thereafter, in W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025, this Hon’ble Court, taking note of the earlier interim order, again directed Respondent No. 6 to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation regarding retention of the quarter and protected the petitioner from eviction. It is further submitted that, upon subsequently obtaining a copy of the order dated 11.12.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 2, which was thereafter transferred to Respondent No. 3. However, Respondent No. 3, vide the impugned order dated 23.07.2026, dismissed the appeal without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the protection granted by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. Learned counsel submits that the authorities have failed to consider the petitioner’s claim for retention of the quarter in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1974 and have proceeded to direct the petitioner to vacate the quarter within three days. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders suffer from illegality, arbitrariness and non-application of mind and are liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel accordingly prays that the respondents may be restrained from evicting the petitioner from the quarter and the petitioner may be permitted to retain the same in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents, while opposing the prayer made by the petitioner, submits that the impugned orders have been passed by the competent authorities in accordance 4 with the provisions of the Act of 1974 and the rules applicable thereto. It is submitted that the petitioner has no vested right to retain the quarter beyond the period permissible under the applicable rules and, therefore, the direction requiring the petitioner to vacate the quarter cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s representation seeking retention of the quarter was duly considered by the competent authority pursuant to the directions passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025. It is contended that the mere fact that the petitioner had approached this Hon’ble Court on earlier occasions does not confer any independent or perpetual right upon the petitioner to continue occupying the quarter. It is further submitted that, after obtaining a copy of the order dated 11.12.2025, the petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which was duly considered by the competent appellate authority. The appeal was thereafter dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2026 after consideration of the relevant facts and applicable provisions of law. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, submits that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the respondent authorities in passing the impugned orders. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal right for continued retention of the quarter and, accordingly, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, 5 this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right to retain the quarter beyond the period permissible under the applicable rules and the provisions of the Act of 1974. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from service in the year 2013. Consequently, his entitlement to retain the quarter, if any, has to be governed strictly by the applicable rules relating to retention of Government accommodation after retirement. 6. The mere pendency of the petitioner’s representations before the competent authority or the fact that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court would not, by itself, confer any indefeasible right upon him to continue in occupation of the quarter after his retirement. The protection granted by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings was only in the context of consideration of the petitioner’s representation and cannot be construed as conferring any permanent or vested right upon the petitioner to retain the quarter. 7. It is also evident from the record that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5267 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No. 6720 of 2025, the petitioner’s claim for retention of the quarter was considered by the competent authority. Thereafter, upon obtaining a copy of the order dated 11.12.2025, the petitioner availed the statutory remedy of appeal, which was duly considered and dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.07.2026. Thus, the petitioner has already availed the remedies available to him against the order directing vacation of the quarter. 8. The contention that the order dated 11.12.2025 was not initially served upon the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, 6 does not justify his continued occupation of the quarter, particularly when the petitioner subsequently obtained a copy thereof and preferred an appeal against the same. No material has been brought on record to establish that, notwithstanding his retirement in the year 2013, the petitioner has any subsisting statutory entitlement to retain the quarter beyond the period permissible under the applicable rules. 9. From the documents on record, it is evident that the petitioner was allotted the quarter on 16.10.2000. Upon his retirement from service, he was permitted to retain the said quarter for a period of one year, with a direction to vacate the same thereafter. The period for vacating the quarter was subsequently extended up to 2022. However, during the extended period, the petitioner was directed to pay the applicable rent as well as electricity charges and to hand over vacant possession of the quarter upon expiry of the permitted period. 10. It is further evident that the petitioner failed to pay the penal rent from February 2013 to June 2025. Consequently, a notice dated 12.06.2025 was issued to him. In response, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 25.06.2025, stating that the notice had not been issued in accordance with law. He contended that he had retired from service on 31.10.2013 and had thereafter been appointed in the Municipal Corporation, Dipka, and, therefore, was entitled to continue residing in the said quarter. He further contended that the imposition of penal rent was illegal and arbitrary. 11. The petitioner's reply was duly considered by the authorities concerned, who found his continued occupation of the quarter to be unauthorized, as reflected in the communication dated 29.09.2025. The 7 said quarter was thereafter allotted to respondent No. 7. Instead of vacating the quarter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, wherein, by order dated 09.10.2025, the Court directed the authorities to decide his representation as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner's representation was rejected by the competent authority. Despite the rejection of his representation, the petitioner did not vacate the quarter. The petitioner thereafter again filed W.P.(C.) No. 67 of 2025, in which an order dated 27.12.2025 was passed. 12. In the meantime, respondent No. 7, to whom the quarter had already been allotted, moved an application seeking possession of the quarter in question. Pursuant thereto, proceedings were initiated and notices were issued to the petitioner. However, instead of filing his reply or appearing before the concerned authority, the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings. Consequently, proceedings under the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam were initiated, and an order was passed directing removal of the petitioner and vacation of the quarter in question. 13. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the concerned Collector, Korba. The appeal was duly considered by the Collector after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Collector found that the petitioner had no authority or statutory right to retain possession of the quarter. Despite repeated directions to vacate the quarter and the imposition of penal rent for unauthorized occupation, the petitioner continued to remain in possession. The quarter in question had already been allotted to respondent No. 7, and the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the concerned SDO, Korba, was 8 duly considered by the Collector, Korba, who passed the order dated 23.07.2026. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the petitioner's retirement from service in the year 2013 and the absence of any demonstrated statutory right to continue retaining the government quarter, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 11.12.2025 and 23.07.2026. The petitioner has failed to vacate the quarter despite repeated notices and directions. He has continued to remain in unauthorized occupation of the government quarter and, therefore, cannot be permitted to continue such occupation. He has also failed to deposit the penal rent from 2023 till date. The quarter in question was already allotted to respondent No. 7 on 03.09.2025, and respondent No. 7 is seeking possession on the strength of the said allotment. The petitioner is, therefore, required to vacate the quarter and hand over peaceful possession thereof to the competent authority in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to continue in occupation of the quarter cannot be accepted. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saurabh