Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr.V.Vinod Kumar, learned Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondents on the interim prayer for staying the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 ordering eviction of the applicant from the AG office Staff Quarters under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.

2. The applicant's contention is that the respondents had initially imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, which was later modified by the Revising Authority to that of compulsory retirement, vide order dated 07.04.2014. Aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement, the applicant has challenged the same by filing OA.No.980/2015, which is still pending before this Tribunal. In the meantime, the 2^nd respondent has issued the impugned order of eviction.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant argued that as per the Full Bench judgment of this Tribunal in D.N.Singh v. Union of India in O.A.No.13/1987 & Batch, it has been held that if the dismissal or removal of Government servant is questioned, the order to vacate the quarters need not be issued. In such cases, the Government servants are being allowed to retain their quarters until the appeals are disposed of by the appellate authority or by the Tribunal. He argued that the applicant is covered by the orders of the Full Bench and is entitled to retain the staff quarters until the disposal of the pending OA. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned orders may be stayed.

4. Mr.V.Vinod Kumar, the learned Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that since the applicant is no more a Government servant, he is not entitled to quarters and his occupation is unauthorized. He also submitted that if the applicant succeeds in O.A.No.980/2015 and if the orders of compulsory retirement are set aside, the respondents would again allot him a quarter. He opposed the grant of any interim relief.

5. On perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the applicant who has been compulsorily retired, has become a pensioner who is entitled to be granted pension and retirement benefits as per Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. A pensioner is not entitled to staff quarters. Inspite of this, the respondents have not evicted him even after the orders of the Revising Authority on 07.04.2014. There is a distinction in the status of a Government servant who is compulsorily retired and a dismissed employee who would forfeit all his service benefits. I hold that the orders of the Full Bench in D.N.Singh's case which is in respect of dismissed employees cannot be automatically extended to this case. Moreover, the challenge in the OAs before the Full Bench was in respect of the orders of the authorities dismissing the applicants without holding an inquiry. It was only on a request made by the counsel for the applicants during the hearing that the Court has also directed the respondents to allow the petitioners therein to retain their quarters.

6. It is further evident that the impugned order has been passed after issuing a show cause notice to the applicant on 30.5.2017. Thereafter, after considering the representation made by the applicant on 14.6.2017, an order of eviction has been passed on 16.06.2017 to vacate the quarters within 15 days. In view of the fact that due notice has been issued and the applicant's representation has been considered and the procedural formalities have been complied with and also in view of the fact that the applicant is a pensioner, who is not entitled to retain quarters beyond the permissible period, I am not inclined to grant interim relief prayed for.

7. Order notice to the respondents. They are directed to file their reply by (4) weeks.

8. Post the matter after (4) weeks.