HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION C NO 2514 OF 2010
N P Sharma
...Petitioners
Versus
Chairman Cum Managing Director HSCL
...Respondents
! Shri S N Prasad Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri P S Koshy with Shri N N Roy Advocates for the respondents
CORAM: Honble Mr Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 27/08/2010
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on 27th day of August 2010
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
1. 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 facilities.
2. 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-10
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.
3. 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.
4. 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). It is further
submitted that Clause 10 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.
5. In 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.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it
is evident that the petitioner is a retired employee of the
respondent / HSCL. 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 10 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.
J U D G E
