The court confirms that a retired employee is an unauthorized occupant if they do not vacate allotted premises post-retirement.

1. The petitioner herein worked with the respondent South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) in its Bishrampur colliery and he was allotted quarter No.1 - B / 47 during his employment. He stood retired from SECL on 30-6-2010, but did not vacate the premises even after his retirement and he was served with a notice to vacate the allotted quarter, however, he did not vacate the same even after receipt of notice leading to serving of notice under S.4(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'). Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner appeared through his advocate and also filed his reply, but on the date of evidence, neither he nor his counsel appeared and ex parte evidence was recorded and the case was fixed on 16-5-2014 for arguments and ultimately, order under S.5 of the Act of 1971 was passed holding him to be the unauthorised occupant and directing his eviction. Feeling aggrieved against the order of eviction, he preferred appeal before the District Judge, Surajpur under S.9 of the Act of 1971.

2. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge considered the appeal of the petitioner herein and held that the petitioner is no longer in employment and ceased to be workman and further held that he is unauthorised occupant and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Estate Officer directing eviction of the petitioner. Now, by way of this writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned District Judge holding him to be unauthorised occupant on the ground that the same is unsustainable and bad in law.

3. Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as the learned District Judge has not completed ten years in the said District as a District Judge, therefore, he was not entitled to hear the appeal under S.9 of the Act of 1971. Secondly, the petitioner has raised industrial dispute and his dispute is pending consideration with the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur and till his dispute is decided, he cannot be evicted.

4. Mr. K.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents / SECL would support the impugned order.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.

6. The petitioner was allotted SECL quarter and he retired from SECL on 30-6-2010 and is still continuing in the SECL quarter by not vacating the same. He was served with show cause notice, he appeared personally and through advocate and filed reply, but thereafter not participated in the enquiry and on 27-5-2014, the Estate Office exercising the powers under S.5 (1) of the Act of 1971 has passed the order of eviction recording reasons and holding that he is satisfied that the petitioner is unauthorised occupant of public premises and he is liable to be evicted which has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge.

7. In the proceeding for eviction initiated under S.4 of the Act of 1971, the only point for enquiry is as to whether the person concerned is unauthorised occupant and nothing more. The Estate Officer has clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner is unauthorised occupant of public premises and therefore he is liable to be evicted.

8. The Delhi High Court in the matter of Hardwari Lal Verma v. The Estate Officer and others ( AIR 1977 Del. 268 ) has clearly held that a Government servant who has been alloted a quarter is nothing more than a licensee; that license can be cancelled