ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and with their consent these two writ applications are disposed of on merit at the admission stage. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions, the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondents for payment of full retirement-dues in terms of the circular No. 3/97 dated 9.9.1997 and circular No. 5/97 dated 9.10.1997. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to charge market rent/penal rent from the petitioners for retaining the quarter till the entire retiral dues are paid to them. 3. Before deciding the issue. I will first of all discuss the relevant facts of the case. The petitioners retired in 1997 from the services of the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation. The petitioners case is that in pursuance of the tripartite memorandum of settlement dated 24.7.1996 and 25.7.1996 the respondent-Corporation announced revised salary under a scheme, which was circulated vide circular No. 3/97 dated 9.9.1997. Under the said circular benefit was extended to all the employees with effect from 1.1.1992. Subsequent to the above circular the Corporation came with another circular No. 5/97 dated 9.10.1997 announcing the revision of scale of pay. dearness allowance etc. in respect of Executive Supervisors and employees in the equivalent salary grade effective since 1.1.1992. Petitioners case is that after retirement they repeatedly requested and reminded the Corporation for payment of retiral dues according to the revised pay scale. However, the respondents served notices upon the petitioners stating therein that the Corporation is ready to release the gratuity, leave salary and RTA provided the petitioners immediately execute a leave licence agreement for further retention of quarters. It is stated that the petitioners immediately filed representation to the effect that gratuity, leave salary and RTA are not the full retirement benefits and, therefore, they shall be allowed to retain the quarter till full retirement benefits are paid to them. 4. The case of the respondent-Corporation in the counter-affidavit is that after superannuation the petitioners have been paid their retirement dues i.e. gratuity, leave salary. RTA etc. 4. The case of the respondent-Corporation in the counter-affidavit is that after superannuation the petitioners have been paid their retirement dues i.e. gratuity, leave salary. RTA etc. The Corporation accordingly directed the petitioners to vacate the quarter within 45 days and in case they wish to retain the quarter, they may apply for retaining the quarter on leave and licence by paying market rent and electrical charges. It is stated that consequent thereupon the petitioners applied for retention of the quarter and a leave and licence agreement was executed on 24.6.1999. The respondents further case is that so far payment of further retirement benefits in terms of the circular is concerned, it is provided in the circular that the payment of arrears in terms of the circular shall be based on the periodical review of the performance of the Corporation. 5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, mainly contended that the petitioners are not liable to pay the market rent/penal rent for retaining the quarter unless the entire difference of arrears of salary, as per the revised pay scale, is paid to them. On the other hand, the contention of Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the Corporation, is that the petitioners are liable to pay the rent as per the leave and licence agreement and they are not entitled to retain the quarter on payment of normal rent till their remaining part of arrears of retiral dues, as per revised pay scale, is paid to them. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the main question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to retain the quarter without payment pf market rent/penal rent till the balance retiral dues, as per the revised pay scale, is paid to them. 7. As noticed above, by letter dated 14.5.1999 (Annexure 3) the petitioners were informed by the management that they shall be paid their retiral dues on vacating the quarter within 45 days. By the said letter the management also offered the petitioners to retain the quarter on leave and licence basis by paying the market rent and electrical charges. Pursuant to that letter the petitioners have been paid their retiral dues and at the same time they offered to retain the quarter on payment of market rent. By the said letter the management also offered the petitioners to retain the quarter on leave and licence basis by paying the market rent and electrical charges. Pursuant to that letter the petitioners have been paid their retiral dues and at the same time they offered to retain the quarter on payment of market rent. Accordingly fresh allotment order was issued by the management in favour of the petitioners for retention of quarter and agreement of leave and licence was executed by the petitioners. In terms of the said agreement the petitioners agreement to pay the rent fixed therein and also agreed to abide all the terms and conditions. After receiving the retiral dues and executing the leave and licence agreement the petitioners now made a claim that they are not liable to pay market rent in respect of the occupation of the quarter unless the remaining part of the retiral dues, as per the revised pay scale, is paid to them. In my considered opinion, the retention of quarter by the petitioners on the basis of leave and licence agreement executed by them have no nexus with the payment of the balance retiral dues according to the revised pay scale. The petitioners cannot be allowed to back out from their promise to pay the rent fixed in the agreement executed by them for the occupation of the quarter. 8. So far ihe payment of difference of retiral dues as per the revised pay scale is concerned, it came for consideration before this Court in CWJC No. 1933/98(R). This Court taking into consideration clause 20.1 of the circular No. 5/97, observed that the payment of arrears of Wages shall depend upon the periodical review of the performance of the Corporation. For better appreciation clause 20.1 of circular No. 5/97 is reproduced hereinbelow : "20.1. The payment of arrears of wages on revision from 1.1.1992 shall be discussed separately based on periodical review of the performance of the Corr poration." 9. In another case being CWJC No. 3098/99(R) a Bench of this Court considered a similar grievance made by a retired employee and while disposing of the interlocutory application on 24.1.2001, held under :-- "Now the petitioner has taken a stand that since the remaining part of the retire-. In another case being CWJC No. 3098/99(R) a Bench of this Court considered a similar grievance made by a retired employee and while disposing of the interlocutory application on 24.1.2001, held under :-- "Now the petitioner has taken a stand that since the remaining part of the retire-. ment benefits, as per the revised pay scale has not been paid, the petitioner is entitled to retain the quarter on normal rent. In my opinion the grievance of the petitioner is not justified. After the petitioner received the retirement benefits and vacated the quarter and after a quarter was allotted to him on the basis of a fresh lease/licence, the question of retaining the quarter after superannuation till payment of retirement benefits, came to an end. Now there Is no nexus between non-payment of the alleged dues on the basis of revised pay scale and allotment of quarter on the basis of certain terms and conditions. As noticed above, the petitioner was allowed a quarter on the basis of lease and licence under certain terms and conditions which has no concern with the service conditions of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that till the writ application is disposed of. he will not be liable to pay rent at the rate either fixed under the agreement or the terms and conditions of the licence or at the market rate. The interlocutory petition has, therefore, no merit which is, accordingly, rejected." 10. In view of the orders passed by this Court in the case of similarly situated persons. I am of the view that the claim of the petitioners that they are not liable to pay the market rent in respect of the occupation of the quarter cannot be accepted. 11. Be that as it may, the question now arises as to how long the retired employees will wait for receiving their arrears of retiral dues as per the revised pay scale. It has not been disputed by the corporation that the petitioners are not entitled to difference of the retiral dues as per the revised pay scale. The petitioners, as noticed above, retired in 1997 when the circular of revised pay scale already came into existence. It has not been disputed by the corporation that the petitioners are not entitled to difference of the retiral dues as per the revised pay scale. The petitioners, as noticed above, retired in 1997 when the circular of revised pay scale already came into existence. More than three years have passed but the Corporation is taking the same stand that the payment of revised pay scale depends upon the periodical perfor-mance of the Corporation. It is now high time that the Corporation should take all necessary measures for payment of difference of the pay scale at least to those employees, who have retired more than three years back. 12. I, therefore, direct the respondent-Corporation to take all necessary steps for payment of remaining part of the difference of the retiral dues as per the revised pay scale to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. These writ applications are. therefore, allowed in part with the aforesaid observations and directions. 14. Writ application partly allowed.