.^"": .^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR 'etitioner Writ Petitionfsi No. 3280 of 2007 Ravi Shankar Gupta, S/o. Late Shri Sundar.LaS Gupta, Aged 60 years, R/o. E 1/1 Go\'t. Residential Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, CG. Versus 1) Stated of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Commercia! Tax, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. 2) Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Homs, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. Gommissioner, Commereial Tax, Raipur, CG. 4) Accountant General, State of ChhatSisgarh, Raipur, CG. 5) Director, Estate & Competent Officer under the Chhattisgarh Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, Raipur, C.G. (Writ Petitlon under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of Sndia) SB: Hon'ble Bflr. Justice Satlsh K. Agnihotri Shri V.C. Otiaiwar, counse! for the petitjoner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the State. th (Passed Q" 13'" June, 2007) The petitioner while working as Additional Commissioner, Commereiai Tax, Government ofChhattisgarh, retired on 30-12-2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. 2) The competent authority victe order dated 30-4-2007 permitted the petitioner to continue in the officiai accommodation being No. E-1/1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, for a period of four months ti!S 31-3-2007 on Raju - 2.- making payment at market rate. It was clearly stated in the letter tHat the petitioner was required to vacate the officiai accommodation'on or before 5-5-2007. The petitioner failed to comply with the said order. Accordingly, vide notice dated 21-5-2007 (Annexure P/4) the petitioner is directed to yacate the house immediately under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar (Bedakhaii) Adhiniyam, 1974. 3) The petitioner has impugned the notice dated 21-5-2007 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that he be permitted to remain in the official accommodation as he has not been paid retirai benefits ti!! date. 4) The contention of the petitloner deserves to be rejected on t'ne simple ground that it is not a pre-condition to remain in the official accommodation even after retirement till retira! dues are paid. The notice dated 21-5-2007 is perfectly vaiid, iegat andjust. 5) This petiiion has no merit and as such is liabie to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge