IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.(C)No. 35m OF 2010. M N. P. Sharma, S/o. late Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, aged about 65 years, retired Executive Director of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. , Resident of Qr. No. 4, Street No. 17, Sector—1o, ‘Bhilaj, District Durg, (C. G.) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :1. Chairman Cum—Managing \Director, HSCL, 5/1, Commissariat Road, Hastings KOLKATA— 700 022 w. 2. Chief Manager Personnel, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Nirman Bhawan, Bhilai, District Durg (C. G.) Pin—49000 1 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS/ DIRECTION OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT The petitioner begs to submit as under:— 4L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 2514 OF 2010 N.P.Sharma Petitioner Versus Respondents Chairman Cum Managing T Director, HSCL. i WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri S.N.Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Koshy, with Shri N.N.Roy, Advocates for the respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 27th day of August, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that the respondents may be directed not to evict the petitioner before expiry of the agreement i.e. 31-01-2011. Further, direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the request of the petitioner to continue in the accommodation for the remaining period of the agreement as other retired Executive has been allowed the said faciiities. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner working as Ex—Executive Director /of respondent No.1/ Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. (in short "HSCL"), retired on 31—01-2009. After retirement, the petitioner was allotted quarter No.4, Street No.7, Sector-1O as an ex-employee under the agreement dated 02-01-2010 for a period upto 31-01-2011. During pendency of the agreement, a letter was issued on 23-4-2010 (Annexure P-1) requesting the petitioner to vacate the quarter within seven days, which was subsequently modified by letter dated 06-05-2010 \\ (Annexure P-2) granting the petitioner further period of two months from the date of issue of the earlier letter dated 23-04~2010 on the ground that HSCL is in urgent need of quarter to accommodate its other employees. Thus, this writ petition. Contention of Shri Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that once lease has been executed, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the quarter, till the period of the agreement i.e. 31-01—2010. On the other hand, Shri Koshy & Shri Roy, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any accommodation as the petitioner is a retired employee. However, on account of the availability of the quarter, the petitioner was allotted the quarter in dispute under the agreement dated 02-01-2010 (Annexure P—4). lt is further submitted that Clause 1O of the agreement clearly provides that HSCL may terminate the agreement before expiry of the aforesaid period after giving two months notice in writing and in such event the vacant possession of the quarter would be made available to HSCL and the security deposit, if any, shall be refunded in full. ln the Case on hand, since there was an urgent need for the regular employees of HSCL, the petitioner was granted two months time by the notice issued on 23—04-2010 & 06-05-2010 to vacate the quarter and handover the peaceful possession. Thus, there was no illegality or irregularity as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused th‘e‘ pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner is a retired employee of the respondent/ HSCL. @ 3 ’The petitioner was allotted a quarter under the agreement dated 02-01-2010 (Annexure P-4) for period till 31-01-2011, as is evident from Clause 1 of the terms and conditions. Clause 1O of the terms and conditions, clearly provides that HSCL reserved the right to get the quarter vacated prior to the expiry of aforesaid 'period after giving two months notice in writing and similarly the ex-employee i.e. the petitioner shall have the same right to terminate the agreement by giving one month notice in writing. In such event, the petitioner is entitled to refund of security amount in full. Accordingly, a notice was given on 23-04-2010 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter on 6/7-05-2010 (Annexure P-2) granting two months time w.e.f. first date of notice dated 23—4-2010 on the ground that the disputed quarter was required for other employees of the HSCL, to the petitioner terminating the agreement. The quarters are constructed for regular employees, however, it appears that in case of availability of quarters, a provision was made to allot quarters to ex—employees also for limited period with the condition that, if the same is‘required, the ex—employee would vacate within a period of two months on notice. There is no infirmity or illegality ' in the order. The petitioner has been granted two months time by way of notice and as such there is no breach of terms or condition of the agreement dated 02—01-2010 on the part of HSCL. There is \ no infirmity or illegality warranting interference with the impugned letters dated 23-04-2010 (Annexure P-1) & 6/7—05-2010 (Annexure P-2). 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Ashok