https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301769 Migrant employees from Jammu and Kashmir who were transferred or retired were not required to vacate official accommodation until rehabilitation in their homes in the Valley. The Single Judge applied the Supreme Court decision in J.L. Koul and the Delhi High Court decision in P.K. Handoo as controlling precedent, and held that retirement did not end the right to retain accommodation pending rehabilitation. The Division Bench agreed that the matter was squarely covered by binding precedent and found no reason to interfere, leaving the Single Judge's view affirmed. en-us Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Apr 2022 15:53:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301769 Migrant employees from Jammu and Kashmir who were transferred or retired were not required to vacate official accommodation until rehabilitation in their homes in the Valley. The Single Judge applied the Supreme Court decision in J.L. Koul and the Delhi High Court decision in P.K. Handoo as controlling precedent, and held that retirement did not end the right to retain accommodation pending rehabilitation. The Division Bench agreed that the matter was squarely covered by binding precedent and found no reason to interfere, leaving the Single Judge's view affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301769