2:0 HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT-BtLASPUR DBjy^N'BLE^HMDi41RENDRAMlSHRA& HON'BLE SHR! R.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Aepellant Versus Respondents 1 Wnt Appeat No. 336 of 2010 NP. Sharma, S/o Late Shri Mlahavir Prasad Sharma, aged about 65 years, retired Executive Director of Hindustan Steet/Works Ck)nstruction Ltd. Resident of Qr.No.4, Street No.17. Sector-10, Bhi!ai, Dlstrict Durg (CG) Chairman Cum-Managing Director, HSCL, 5/1, Commissariat Road, Hastings KOLKATA ~ 700 022. Chief Manager Personnel, Hindustan Steei Works, Construction Ltd. Nirman Bhawan, Bhiiai, DJstrict Durg(CG)Pin-490001. Present: Shri S.N. Prasad, counsel for the appeliant ORAL JUDGMENT rih (27IrlSeptember,2010) PerDhlrendra Mishra. J This writ appea! is dlrected against the order dated 27 August, 2010 passed in W.P.(c) No.2514/10, whereby the petstioner's writ petition for direcfjon to the respondents not to evsct him before expjry ot the aareement (Annexure P/4) between the parties and further direction to respondent NoJ to consider the request of the petsfjoner to contiinue <n the accommodation for the remajning period ofthe agreement, has been djsmissed. Heard learned counsel for the appelJant and perused the impugned oMer. The petitioner was allotted a quarter under theagreement dated 2nd January, 2010 (Annexure P/4) for a period tili 31st January, 2011, after he retired from the sen/ices. Considering the sttpulation rn the agreement, which provides that HSCL would get the quarter vacated prior to expir^ of the aforesaid period after giving two months' notice in writing and similariy, the ex- employee i.e. the petjtioner aSso had the same right to terminate the agreement by gjving one month's notice sn writing, and further, on such termination, the employee was entJtled to refund of security amount jn full, and that the agreement was terminated after due notice of two months under the agreement, the writ petition has been dismissed and it has been heSd that WsfS'iSSW-^litfW-M.'.VSii-S-s, 'y '% ^£ilfc 1 ^•' ^ -:^^' ^ ':-^..:'::.:^'" ^\ there is no breach of terms and condltions of the agreement dated 2 January, 2010 on the part of HSCL. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. There is no substence in this appeal, the same desewes to be and is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge