2026:UHC:3650 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 9 8 6 / 2 0 2 6 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from allotted accommodation till final disposal of the Original Application pending before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal on payment of rent at the same rate as applicable during his service tenure and further to restrain the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the aforesaid accommodation during the pendency of the original application. 3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that petitioner was compulsorily retired by the respondent No. 4, while he was working as ‘Darban’ with the respondent department. Against the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner has filed Original Application No. 646 of 2026 (Nainital) before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nainital. An application has been moved in the aforesaid O.A. by the petitioner for not 2026:UHC:3650 dispossessing him from the house, which was allotted to him during service. 4. The said application is still undecided. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following prayers: “(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the allotted accommodation and to permit the petitioner to continue therein till the final disposal of the Original Application pending before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal on payment of the same rate of house rent as applicable during his service tenure; (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, their agents, officials or any person acting on their behalf from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner, including dispossession from the said accommodation, during the pendency of the Original Application.” 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a prayer cannot be granted, particularly when an application for the same relief is still pending with Original Application. 6. Accordingly, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner may pursue his application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Nainital. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.05.2026 Mahinder/ 2026:UHC:3650