IN THE HIGH COURT OF UT ARAKHAND AT NAINITAL T Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1719 of 2008. 1. Dinesh Kumar S/O Bhutto Prasad Yadav, 2. Telu Ram S/O Ghasitu, Both R/O Military Farm, Dehradun Cantt. Dehradun. … Petitioners. Vs. 1. Officer in Charge, Military Farm, Dehradun, 2. Deputy Director General, Military Farm, Army Head Quarter, III Block, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. …Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S.Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the respondents. Date February 24, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 6148 of 2008) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admit the petition. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the allotted quarter except by due course of law. According to the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 Dinesh Kumar was engaged by the respondents as labour since 5-7-1990 and he continuously worked upto 31-8-1998. His services were illegally dispensed with w.e.f. 1-9-1998 by oral order without any notice by the employer. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Ultimately the Central Government Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the dispute vide Award dated 30-12-2002 thereby holding that the termination order against the petitioner no.1 was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and directed reinstatement of the petitioner no. 1 in service. Aggrieved, the respondent department preferred a Writ Petition No. 371 of 2003 (M/S) before this Court. This Court by order 2 dated 27-7-2005 modified the award and directed that the petitioner no.1 be reinstated in service along with 50% back wages instead of full back wages. The respondent department preferred Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 31- 1-2007. The Review Petition too was dismissed. Similar is the case of petitioner no.2. According to the petitioners, instead of reinstating the petitioners in service, the petitioners were orally directed by the respondents to vacate the quarter of Military Dairy Farm against which the petitioners have preferred the present petition apprehending their illegal eviction from the accommodation in question. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are occupants of the quarter of Military Dairy Farm and therefore, they cannot be evicted therefrom except by due course of law. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the averments made in the writ petition, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be evicted except by due course of law. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3