(1) WP-794.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2010 Vishwanath S/o Mahadev Bagade PETITIONER VERSUS The Union of India and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.N. Pagare, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for the Respondent nos.2 and 3 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 21ST JUNE, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By the present Petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to release his gratuity benefits under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme (M.V.R.S.) and other consequential benefits. He has also prayed that an amount of ` 75,000/- be deducted from the amount due under the M.V.R.S. and other dues payable towards the residential quarters allotted to him and to permit him to retain the residential quarters. The petitioner has further requested that (2) WP-794.2010 the transfer orders dated 7.10.2008, 31.12.2008 and the show-cause notice dated 9.5.2009 be quashed. 2. The petitioner joined service as a Clerk with the respondent no.2 on 1.4.1975. A Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme was framed which was offered to the employees of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. (N.T.C. Ltd.). There is no dispute that the Aurangabad Textile Mills in which the petitioner was employed was taken over by the N.T.C. Ltd. and was being run as a unit of the N.T.C. Ltd. (Western Region). The petitioner accepted the M.V.R.S. And tendered his resignation. The respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that he could collect his dues under the M.V.R.S. besides his gratuity and lump sum ad hoc amount after vacating the quarters allotted to him, since the petitioner had resigned on 16.2.2008. Under the M.V.R.S. he was also granted pension. The petitioner has been paid his provident fund. 3. It appears that the petitioner did not vacate the quarters and, therefore, the permission granted to him to avail of the M.V.R.S. was (3) WP-794.2010 cancelled by a letter dated 7.10.2008. The petitioner was transferred to other units of the N.T.C. i.e. the Nanded Textile Mills and later to the Finlay Mills, Mumbai by an order dated 31.12.2008. As the petitioner did not join duties with Finlay Mills a show cause notice was issued to him. A charge sheet was issued on 18th August, 2009 as the petitioner had not reported for duty with Finlay Mills. The respondents 2 and 3 have initiated action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction) Act, 1971. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he should be permitted to retain the staff quarters allotted to him by deducting an amount of ` 75,000 from his dues, as has been done in respect of other workmen. Respondents 2 and 3 have replied to this contention of the petitioner through an affidavit filed by the Engineer of the Aurangabad Textile Mills, wherein he has stated that the representation made by the petitioner for retaining the staff quarters has been rejected. (4) WP-794.2010 5. It appears from the record that payment under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme was subject to the employee vacating the Company's accommodation, whether leased or otherwise and returning the Company's properties held by the employee. Though the petitioner's application for being extended the benefit of the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme was accepted initially, the order has been cancelled on 7th October, 2008. Therefore, the question of the petitioner retaining the staff quarters does not arise. The affidavit further indicates that only those ex-employees who were allotted the quarters outside the mill premises had been permitted to retain them on payment of a certain amount. However, all employees who were occupying the staff quarters within the mill premises were required to vacate the quarters, if they wanted to avail of the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 6. On perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 on 13.6.2010, it is evident that the petitioner is required to pay an amount of ` 1,05,000/- in lieu of rent for 21 months (5) WP-794.2010 as he had retained the staff quarters without permission. A fresh valuation has been carried out by the Valuer approved by the Government for the period between 1st February, 2010 and 31st May, 2011. It has been found that an amount of ` 2,01,476/- is payable by the petitioner besides the aforesaid amount of ` 1,05,000/-. 7. The learned Advocate for the respondents 2 and 3 has pointed out that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of ` 1,76,144/- towards his legal dues including gratuity. 8. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the Writ Petition. The petitioner has chosen to continue in the staff quarters although his services have come to an end. Petition rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp