THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.696 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is an employee of Singareni Collieries and posted at Bhoopalapalli. He states that though he was entitled to be allotted quarter as per his seniority, he was denied the benefit, and as was done by many other employees, he occupied a quarter, bearing No.T2-92, at Bhoopalapalli. When penal rent was being levied for that, he filed W.P.No.7434 of 1997, before this Court. The said writ petition together with a batch of large number of writ petitions was disposed of through a common order, dated 20.01.2000. It was directed that, a) The Company shall consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of quarter and determine the same within a stipulated time; b) in case the petitioners or some of them are found to be entitled for allotment, they shall be allotted quarters and the matter shall rest at that; and c) if any employee is found not eligible for allotment of the quarter or the benefit under the settlement, he shall be liable to pay the penal rent. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the respondent passed an order, dated 22.02.2003. On finding that the petitioner is eligible, they allotted quarter No.T2-476 in Krishna Colony, Bhoopalapalli. However, in the same proceedings, it was pointed out that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs79,467/-. The petitioner feels aggrieved by that condition. He submits that the imposition of such condition, is contrary to the directions issued by this Court. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. According to them, the petitioner was not entitled to occupy the quarter on his own accord and in compliance with the directions of this Court the quarter of the type, commensurate with his employment was allotted to him. It is stated that since the petitioner was not entitled to occupy quarter No.T2-92, he is liable to pay the penal rent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The gist of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7434 of 1997 and batch has been mentioned above. The case of the petitioner was considered in terms of the said judgment and he was found to be eligible to be allotted a quarter. It means that though he was otherwise eligible to be allotted quarter, the company did not extend the facility. Obviously, for that reason, this Court did not permit the company to recover any penal rent from such of the employees, who are found to be eligible to be allotted quarters. The occasion to levy penal rent even after such exercise would arise, only when the employee is found not eligible to be allotted a quarter or the benefit under settlement and still he is in occupation of the quarter. Such is not the case here. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, in so far as it directed the petitioner to pay the penal rent, is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11.11.2010. GJ