CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9431 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 26, 2011 Dr.V.N.Attri .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the notifications, Annexures P-5 and P-6, in regard to age of superannuation, pension and gratuity an other allowances etc. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to implement the scheme of revision of pay of teachers, besides pleading that he should be considered deemed to be continuing in service till the date of retirement i.e. 65 years. In fact, number of writ petitions were filed in this Court and various other Courts in the country for implementation CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9431 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: of the above noted notifications for enhancement of superannuation age and other directions issued by U.G.C. The writ petitions so filed have already been decided against the teachers and copy of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6889 of 2010 titled S.S.Bindra and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-14. Against the orders passed by the High Courts, most of the petitioners have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued notice in such cases and as an interim measure, it has permitted the petitioners therein to continue in the premises earlier allotted to them on the same terms and conditions. Once the prayer for enhancing the age of retirement has been declined by this Court, the petitioner can not be heard to approach this Court again to claim the same relief, which has been declined in large number of cases of those persons who are identically placed. Merely because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted those petitioners to retain the accommodation earlier allotted to them, would not mean that the petitioner can approach this Court with a prayer to allow him to continue in service upto the age of 65 years or to retain the accommodation. Incidental prayer of permitting an employee to remain in occupation of Government accommodation can be considered only if this Court is seized of some main issues, which would give right to any person to continue in service. Once the prayer of similar persons to allow them to continue till completion of age of 65 years has been declined, it would be totally inappropriate for this Court to permit the petitioner to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9431 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: retain accommodation allotted to him on the basis of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner can get such an order only from Hon'ble Supreme Court, when he makes a claim for permitting him to continue in service till the age of 65 years. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE