Allahabad High Court
SAHAB SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The petitioner may not be compelled to vacate the house until Respondent No.2 decides on his representation, and Respondent No.2 must decide within four weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Sahab Singh Yadav, was transferred from Prayagraj to Etawah and sought to retain the government‑allotted house because his daughter is studying in Class IX. He relied on a DG Police letter dated 21 November 2016 allowing retention of accommodation when a child is in Class IX or XI, and he had already filed a representation before Respondent No.2, which was pending. The respondents directed the petitioner to vacate the house by an order dated 25 August 2026. The High Court held that, since the representation is pending, the petitioner should not be forced to vacate until Respondent No.2 decides, and directed Respondent No.2 to pass an order within four weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedure for a transferred government employee to retain an allotted house when a child is studying in Class IX or XI?
- Whether the petitioner can be compelled to vacate the house before the pending representation before Respondent No.2 is decided.
Subjects
- transfer
- government accommodation
- retention of house
- representation
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14268 of 2026
Sahab Singh Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dhananjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the daughter of the petitioner is studying in Class-IX and the
petitioner has been transferred from Prayagraj to Etawah by the
order dated 21.5.2026. It has been further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that as per the letter dated 21st
November, 2016 of the Director General of Police the
appropriate authority can permit the transferred employee to
retain the house in case his son or daughter are studying in
Class IX or XIth. It has also been submitted that in this regard
petitioner has already moved a representation before
Respondent No.2 which is pending consideration. By the order
impugned dated 25.8.2026 petitioner has been directed to
vacate the house allotted to the petitioner.
3. Since the petitioner has already represented before the
respondent no.2, it would be appropriate that the Respondent
No.2 shall pass an order in accordance with law within a period
of four weeks.
4. Till the order is passed by respondent no.2 on the
representation of the petitioner, the petitioner may not be
compelled to vacate the house in question.
WRIA No. 14268 of 2026
2
5. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.
September 16, 2026
Kumar Manish
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…