ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing the order contained in letter dated 25/4/2002 (An-nexure-5) which has been passed, pursuant lo the order dated 23/1/2002 of this Court passed in WP (S) No. 639 of 2002.
3. The petitioner had moved this Court earlier in the aforesaid WP (S) No. 639 of 2002 for payment of his retiral benefits and other dues by making a grievance that though he retired from the service of the M/s H E C on 31.1.1997 as Assistant Foreman but the respondent HEC has not yet paid the retiral benefits like leave encashment. retiral TA, LTC, for two block years, arrears on revision of pay and wages for the period from 1969 to 1973.
4. This Court, by the aforesaid order dated 23.1.2002 disposed of the said writ application, filed by the petitioner, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for payment of wages for the period from 1969 to 1973 and further directed the respondents to calculate the other dues like Leave Encashment. Retiral T.A., LTC. Arrears on revision of pay and then to pay the admitted dues within three months from the date of receipt of the representation which may be preferred by the petitioner. In the said very order, as It appears this Court recorded that the petitioner intends to vacate the quarter if the respondent take possession of the same. The order dated 23.1.2002 of this Court has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that on one hand the respondents have not paid his legal dues and on the other hand he has been saddled with the liability to pay the penal rent and other charges for his occupation of the quarter.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the decision in the case of H.E.C. Ex-Employee Association CWJC No. 332 of 1999 (R) disposed of on 9.9.1999 the petitioner is entitled to retain the quarter till the retiral benefits are paid to him.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the fact that though the learned counsel for the petitioner stated before this Court while WP (S) No. 639 of 2002 was being disposed of on 23.1.2002 that the petitioner is ready to vacate the quarter but still the petitioner has not yet vacated the quarter and he is continuing on the unauthorized occupation of the quarter though more than two years have already passed since the date of the last order dated 23.1.2002 passed by this Court In WP (C) No. 639 of 2002.
8. On a query made by the Court Mr. Sunll Kumar. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, admitted that the petitioner is still in occupation of the said quarter but he submitted that in view of the decision in the case of HEC Ex-Employee Association CWJC No. 332/1999 (R) the petitioner is entitled to retain the said quarter till the entire retiral benefits is paid to the petitioner.
9. From the order of this Court dated 23.1.2002 In WP (S) No. 639 of 2002 (Annexure-3) it appears that the same stand was taken by the petitioner in that case also but from the operative portion of the order it appears that the petitioner stated before this Court that he is ready to vacate the quarter.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the petitioner has failed to comply his commitments made before this Court for vacation of the quarter and, therefore, the respondents have rightly held by Annexure-5 that the petitioner Is liable to pay penal rent and other charges for the unauthorized occupation of the quarter. I further find that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and. therefore, he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.