- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. In both W.P.S. No. 5004 of 2004 and W.P.S. No. 5025 of 2004, petitioners are aggrieved by the demand letter dated 7.6.2002 and 7.5.2002 respectively by which the respondents have deducted huge amount of damage charges for retention of company quarter in addition to the market rent from the petitioners. Petitioners have also made prayer for commanding the respondents to pay the admitted retiral dues as have been indicated in para 1(ii) of the writ petitions respectively. However, at the moment, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer for refund of damage charges amounting to Rs. 67098.98 and Rs. 60224.88 respectively in both these writ petitions as also the penal rent realized from them. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that pursuant to their V.R.S scheme due to separation from the organization, petitioners have been paid all the V.R.S amount under different heads. These petitioners have earlier approached this court in W.P.S.3882 of 2001 for payment of admitted V.R.S. dues since they have accepted the separation scheme of the organization. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition had directed the petitioners to vacate their respective quarters by 30.9.2001 and in that case respondents would not charge penal rent. But on failure to do so, it will be open to the authorities to charge penal rent and adjust the amount from the benefit to which such petitioner is entitled. It is submitted that thereafter, petitioners preferred L.P.A. No. 566 of 2001. However, the Division Bench of this Court did not interfere with the directions of the learned Single Judge relating to vacation of the quarter by the respective petitioners.
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have vacated the quarters on 29.5.2002 and 29.4.2002 respectively. The reasons for coming before this Court for refund of damage charges and penal rent in the present writ petitions despite failing to vacate the quarters within stipulated date i.e. 30.9.2001 as per the order passed in W.P.S. No. 3882 of 2001 is that other persons who also preferred writ applications and had also vacated the their respective quarters after the said deadline have been granted refund of damage charges as well as penal rent. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in M.J.C. No. 191 of 2001 and other contempt civil cases ( Annexure-7 to both the writ petitions). Petitioners have also relied upon a similar order by which other similarly situated persons have been granted refund by the direction of this Court in W.P.S. No. 4945 of 2004 and other analogous cases vide judgment dated 29.4.2004 and W.P.S No. 5338 of 2002 vide judgment dated 24.6.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that only because these petitioners had not moved earlier in contempt the said benefit has not been granted to them. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the demand letter by which petitioners are aggrieved is of 2002 i.e. before passing of the order passed by this Court in other writ petitions in respect of other employees said to be similarly situated.
(3.) BE that as it may, it appears that these petitioners were also party in W.P.S. No. 3882 of 2001 along with other persons like Krishna Nandan Sinha in W.P.S. No. 4338 of 2002 and those in contempt cases contained in Annexure-7 to the present writ petitions referred to herein supra. In that view of the matter, if the respondents have refunded the said damage charges and penal rent to similarly situated persons, the petitioners are also entitled to similar benefits.;