Unauthorized occupation of official quarter after retirement is considered unauthorized occupation of public premises. The court has a duty to come to the aid of a litigant with a genuine grievance, but will not entertain a litigant with a mala fide claim.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the Eastern Coalfields Limited. He retired from service on and from 1st October, 2010. On his retirement the petitioner was paid his provident fund, gratuity and pension.

2. While the petitioner was in service he was allotted an official quarter. The petitioner is occupying the said official quarter till date.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are not releasing his leave encashment, performance related pay, puja bonus for the year 2008 and superannuation benefits for the executives under the new Pension Scheme.

4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that after his retirement the petitioner has received a sum of rupees ten lakh on account of gratuity, rupees twenty one lakh ninety thousand and four hundred seventy one on account of his provident fund dues. Pension has also been released in his favour.

5. The respondents have denied that the petitioner is entitled to leave encashment of the amount as mentioned in the writ petition. The petitioner is also not entitled to performance related pay as alleged. The scheme of Puja Bonus is applicable only to the non- executives and the petitioner being an executive is not entitled to the same. The petitioner is also not entitled to superannuation benefit as there is no such scheme for the executives.

6. It has been submitted that as per the Circular bearing reference no. ECL/C-5(D)/3494 dated 15th March, 2005 the Eastern Coalfields Limited has taken a decision that the leave encashment payment of the employees, both executives and non-executives, on superannuation, shall be released only after vacation of the Company's quarters. In view of the aforesaid Circular the leave encashment, if any, payable to the petitioner will be released only after the petitioner vacates the official quarter of the Company.

7. The petitioner filed an earlier writ petition being W.P no. 32872 (W) of 2014 praying for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to disburse a sum of rupees nine lakh approximately as his leave encashment and performance related pay along with interest of 18%. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Court on 10th April, 2017 wherein it has been recorded that "Mr. Roy, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in case the remaining amount of the retiral benefits which has not been released in favour of the petitioner is released, he shall vacate the company quarter under his occupation within a week thereafter. It was only because Mr. Majumder, the learned advocate for the respondents objected to the submission of the petitioner that even seven years after the petitioner's retirement, he has not vacated the company quarter.

8. I directed the petitioner to file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he shall vacate the company quarter under his occupation within seven days from the date of receipt of the remaining amount of the retiral dues from the respondents.

9. Today when the matter has been taken up, Mr. Roy prays for accommodation. In view of what has been recorded earlier, I am not willing to grant any further accommodation to the petitioner for filing the undertaking.

10. Since the petitioner has not prayed for release of his remaining retiral dues in the writ petition, the Court cannot direct the respondents to make the payment on the verbal prayer made by the learned advocate for the petitioner.

11. Since the petitioner has not filed any undertaking, the question of granting any further time to vacate the company quarter does not arise. In fact, I dispose of the writ petition without any order.

12. Mr. Majumder submitted that the respondents have already initiated a proceeding for recover of the company quarter from the possession of the petitioner. They shall be at liberty to proceed with the same."

13. From the aforesaid order it appears that the said prayer of the petitioner was disallowed by the Court when he filed t