HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WntPetitionNp,^97of2005 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Shatmghan Rai. S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Rai, aged about 38 years, occupation-Driver. 2. Joginder Paswan, S/o Shri Mahjar Ram, aged about 39 ycars, occupation-FIelper. 3. Sudarshan Paswan. S/o Shri Bansropan. aged about 40 years, occupation-Mason/Carpenter. 4. Gaya Prasad, S/o Shri Bandhu Prasad, aged about 39 yeai's, occupation-Driver. 5. Vidya Singh, S/o Shri Pujaii Singh, aged about 40 years, occupation-Mason/Carpenter. 6. S.N. Mishra, S/o Nageshwar Mishra, aged about 39 years, occupation-Welder. (All R/o Deepika Colony, 8ECL, Gevra Project Distt. Korba (Chliattisgarh). VERSUS 1. The Sub Area Manager, Gevra Project, P.0. Gevra, Distt. Korba (Chliattisgarh). 2. Dy. ChiefPersonnel Manager, Gevra Project, SECL, Distt. Korba(CG). 3. Area Security Qfficer, Gevra Project, SECL, Distt. Korba (CG). (WRIT PE'HTION UNDER ART1CLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon?ble Mr. SatLsh K, Asnihotri J.) Present : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11th day ofNovemfeer, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioners impugn the notices dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure P/2) & 10.12.2005 (Annexure P/l), issued underthe provisions ofSection 4 (1) ofthe Public Premises (Eviction ofUnaufhorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act, 1971?), on the ground that the petitioners are not unauthorised occupants ofthe residential accommodation allotted to the petitioners. Shri P.8. Koshy, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents submits that under the provisions ofthe Act, 1971, the petitioners are not employees of ^^^ 4. 6. 2" Coallields Limited, and as such they are unauthorised occupants. Therefore, notices were issued on 19.11.2005 (Annexure P/2) & 10.12.2005 (Annexure P/l) by the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, directing the petitioners to vacate the official accommodation at the earliest, failing which; the petitioners would be removed from the official accominodation. Leamed counsel further submits that with regard to the facts as to whefher the petitioners are employees of the respondent coalflelds or not, is pending consideration in W.P. No. 2752/05 (Madhya Pradesh Koyala Mazdoor Sabha (HM8) Vs. The Sub Area Manager, Govra Project & Others), against the order passed by the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal, wherein, it was found that the petitioners are not employees of the respondent coalfields. Tt was specifically mentioned in the order passed by the Tribunal that the petitioners were working imder Coal Transport Contractors. Be that as it may, since the matter is pending coasideration in W.P, No, 2752/05, no eviction order canbe passed onthe ground that the petitioners are unauthorised occupant without leave ofthe Court in W.P. No, 2752/05, as the issue withregardto status ofthe petitioners is under consideration. In view ofthat the impugtied notices dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure P/2) and 10.12.2005 (Annexure P/l) are not sustainable in law. The same deserve to be aad are accordingly quashed. No order asto costs. Interim relief granted eariier stands discharged. Consequently, M(W)P No. 1106/2006- application for vacating interini relief granted on 20.12.2005, also stands disposed of Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu