ssp 1 WP 416 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.416 OF 2011 Sudesh A Nalawade .....Petitioner versus Enforcement Inspector, Office of Competent Authority, Bombay and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Rachana R.Chavan, for the petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP, for the respondent-State. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 19 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioner is claiming benefit of service quarter which was allotted to his father, who was in government service. The father of the petitioner was serving as a Brodma Operator in the Information and Public Relations Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The petitioner has joined the Government Service as a Police Constable in the year 1987 and is now holding the post of PSI. By way of this petition, it is prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to continue to occupy the quarter which was occupied by his father. However, the petitioner has been evicted from the said quarter on the ground that the father of the petitioner was working in the different department and the petitioner will be entitled to occupy the quarter as per his entitlement as belonging to the police force. In this ssp 2 WP 416 of 2011 connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Government Resolution dated 31-12-1984, which stipulates that if a government servant has retired and if his heirs are in service, then they are entitled to get benefit of continuance in service quarter. 2. Learned Govt. Pleader pointed out that the said Govt. Resolution has already been withdrawn by the Government as this Court has found the said G.R. as being unconstitutional. Learned Govt. Pleader submits that the petitioner was not working in the same department in which his father was serving and incase the petitioner has applied in the police quota, his case will be considered appropriately as per his seniority in the waiting list. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated October 29, 2007, by which the petitioner was permitted to make a representation and the State Government was directed to decide the said representation within four weeks from the date and in accordance with law. Subsequently, the representation of the petitioner has been dealt with by the authorities concerned and it was rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner was serving in a different department and the petitioner who is serving in a police department, has a different and separate quota and the benefit of the said Circular is now not available to the petitioner. The ssp 3 WP 416 of 2011 Circular dated 30-10-2010 is also not applicable as the petitioner is serving in a different department than his father. It is also required to be noted that on this very ground, the petitioned has earlier filed a writ petition which was dismissed for default by an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12-09-2008. The petitioner thereafter, applied for restoration of the said writ petition by way of Notice of Motion No.390 of 2009. The Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 2nd August, 2010, passed the following order. “No useful purpose will be served by restoring the writ petition because the Circular, for enforcement of which the petition has been filed, itself has been withdrawn by the government. Notice of Motion, therefore, disposed of. 4. In view of the same, fresh writ petition on the same cause of action otherwise, in our view, is not required to be entertained. Yet, we have examined the petition on the merits and accordingly found that the petitioner is not entitled to get back the quarter from which his father was evicted. The State Government is however directed to consider the case of the petitioner for service quarter as per his seniority in the waiting list in the police department. With the above observations, the writ petition is rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )