-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1747 OF 2001 Kadir Sharfuddin Halde ) of Bombay, Indian Inhabitant, having his residence at ) D-236, Reserve Bank of India, Maratha Mandir Marg, ) Mumbai-400 008. )..Petitioner versus The Reserve Bank of India, ) a statutory body constituted under the Reserve Bank of India ) Act, 1934, Department of Expenditure and Budgetary Control ) Central Office Main Building, 2nd floor, Post Box No. 406, ) Mumbai-400 001 ).Respondent Ms. Lorraine Misquith with Mr. Anand Grover, instructed by Mr. Prakash Mahadik, for the petitioner. Mr.Sunil Purohit, instructed by M/s. Udwadia Udeshi & Berjis, for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: JULY 18 , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. SAVANT, J.): The issue in the above petition is as regards at what rate the petitioner should be charged for occupying the official quarters during the period on which he was on leave preparatory to retirement. -2- 2. The petitioner was initially joined with the Reserve Bank of India as a Class-III employee and was at the relevant time attached as Central Office Assistant to the Chief General Manager, Department of Expenditure and Budgetary Control of the Respondent. The petitioner’s services were governed by the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulation, 1948. The petitioner was allotted official accommodation being Flat No. D-236, Reserve Bank Staff Quarters, Maratha Mandir Marg, Mumbai. The petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on the close of business hours on 31st May, 2001. The petitioner applied to the Bank for sanctioning the leave preparatory to retirement from 1-6-2001 till 17-3-2002. The said request of the petitioner was considered and vide letter dated 29th May, 2001, the petitioner was sanctioned leave preparatory to retirement from 1-6-2001 for a period of nine months. The said letter also, inter alia, informed the petitioner that the petitioner would have to vacate the said official accommodation on the expiry of two months from the cessation of service with the Bank or from the date of proceeding on leave preparatory to retirement. By a further letter dated 1st February, 1999, the petitioner was informed that no superannuating dues including provident fund, gratuity and commutation value of pension would be released till vacation of the Bank’s flat. Since the petitioner continued to be in occupation of the official accommodation, the superannuating dues of the petitioner were withheld by the respondent Bank. -3- 3. It is an undisputed position that during the pendency of the above petition, the petitioner has vacated the quarters and on such vacation has been paid his superannuating dues. However, the petitioner has been charged for occupation of the official accommodation during the leave preparatory to retirement at the following rates. (i) For June and July, 2001 : at Rs. 770/- (normal rate) (ii) For Aug. & Sept. 2001 : at Rs. 1440/- (double rate) (iii) For Oct. 2001 to Feb. 2002 : at Rs. 12,642/- (at the market rate) Therefore, an amount of Rs. 67,630/- has been recovered from the superannuating dues payable to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner initially raised various contentions as regards the power of the respondents to recover the said amounts from the petitioner’s superannuating dues as also the rate at which the petitioner has been charged for occupying the official accommodation during the said period. However, pursuant to the settlement that the parties arrived at during the course of the hearing yesterday, it is agreed by the respondent that the petitioner would be refunded the amount which has been recovered from the provident fund dues. However, in so far as the recovery from his salary is concerned, the same would be retained by the respondent. Shri Grover, learned -4- counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of his client who was present in Court yesterday, accepted the said settlement. The matter was adjourned only for passing of the order. In view of the said settlement, Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent, states that the amount which has been recovered from the provident fund dues quantified at Rs. 30,290/- , would be refunded to the petitioner towards the full and final settlement of all his claims including the one in the petition, within a period of one week from date by drawing a cheque in the name of the petitioner and sending the same to the office address of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On such cheque being received, the petitioner would pass a receipt for the same. 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at by the parties as recorded hereinabove. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. 6. It is made clear that this order has been passed and the concession has been recorded in the special facts of the case as narrated above. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.