2026:UHC:1860 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 580 of 2026 18 March, 2026 Rekha Tyagi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3 to consider and decide the application/representation dated 24.09.2024 submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated period (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). 2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband was employed in Mazhola Dirghakar Bahu Sahkari Samiti Limited, Gram Kanchanpuri, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in the post of Clerk since 1985. In 1987, the petitioner’s husband was granted a lease for residence at the Co-operative Building, Near Bank of Baroda, Ward No. 16, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, and the family has been residing there since then. Unfortunately, on 14.05.2015, the petitioner’s husband passed away while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for 2026:UHC:1860 2 a job under the Dying and Harness Scheme, but she was not granted employment in place of her husband. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the lease of her residence had expired, and she sought to renew it. On 24.09.2024, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents, but no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and impermissible in the eyes of law, as the petitioner is a widow, a senior citizen, is suffering from several ailments, and has no other shelter besides her current residence. He further submits that the petitioner is the ultimate sufferer in this matter, having been running from pillar to post for a genuine grievance, yet nothing has been done by the respondents. 4. Upon perusal of the material on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the petitioner’s husband was allotted the residential house during his tenure with Mazhola Dirghakar Bahu Sahkari Samiti Limited. However, the entitlement to such residential accommodation was strictly personal to the employee and did not, by law or under the rules of the Co-operative Society, extend to the spouse or family after the death of the employee. 5. It is further observed that the petitioner, as 2026:UHC:1860 3 a widow, does not have any legal right or claim to continue the lease of the residential house allotted to her deceased husband. The lease was not transferable, and no provision has been shown to this Court that permits the continuation of the lease in favor of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in-limine. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.03.2026 AK