ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by petitioner Kedar Prasad Sinha for a direction on the respondent to withdraw eviction notice and to make payment of the lawful dues. 2. According to him, he is entitled for further amount towards Employers share of contribution on contributory provident fund in view of revision of scale of pay and dear-ness allowance with effect from 1.1.1992 to 10.12.1996, balance arrears on account of revision of scale of pay and dearness allowance from 1.1.1992 to 10.12.1996 and leave travel assistance. 3. The admitted facts show that the petitioner opted for retirement under voluntary retirement scheme, which was allowed with effect from 10th of December, 1996. Even after retirement the petitioner continued to retain the quarter of the respondent H.E.C. Ltd. in respect to which an agreement dated 14th January, 1997 has been enclosed. 4. counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997 the pay was revised from retrospective date with effect from 1st January, 1992. The petitioner being in service as on 1st January, 1992 up to 10th December, 1996 is not only entitled for the arrears of salary on such revision in pursuance of Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997, but also the consequential revised contributory part of the provident fund and leave encashment. 5. It is also submitted that the respondent should not ask the petitioner to vacate the quarter having not paid the total benefits as mentioned above and in terms of the agreement dated 14th January, 1997. 6. The respondents have opposed the prayer on the ground that Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997 is not applicable to the employees, who retired prior to the said date. It is also alleged that though the admitted dues have been paid, the petitioner has not vacated the quarter even after five and half years of his retirement. Counsel for the respondent also relied on a Division Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Maithon Toppo v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 1046 , in support of the aforesaid submission. 7. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner approached the authorities for revised pay and benefits in the revised scale and straightway moved this Court only when the vacation notice was issued. 8. 7. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner approached the authorities for revised pay and benefits in the revised scale and straightway moved this Court only when the vacation notice was issued. 8. Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October. 1997 fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Maithon Toppo (supra). In the said case, an employee of H.E.C. Ltd. availed the benefits under the V.R. Scheme prior to issuance of Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997. Similar prayer was made for arrears and benefits in terms with the said circular dated 9th October, 1997. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Court held as follows ; "5. In this case, the only question relevant for consideration is whether the employees of the Corporation who retired under the VRS are also entitled for the revised scale of pay, as applicable to other employees of the Corporation. Clause 3 of the circular deals with the categories of employees who are entitled for the revised pay scales. As per Clause 3.1 the benefit of revision of pay scales shall be applicable only to those employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 and continued to be on the rolls of the Corporation as on date of the issue of this circular i.e. 9th October, 1997. Clause 3.2 further shows that revised scale shall also be applicable on the pro-rata basis to the employees who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 but subsequently ceased to be in service of the Corporation on account of superannuation or death. Clause 3.3 shows that benefit of revised pay scale will not be applicable to those who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 but subsequently left the services for the reasons of dismissal, discharge, resignation without permission, resignation due to disciplinary action for misconduct, moral turpitude etc. 6. From a bare reference to the coverage clause of the scheme, as noticed above, it would appear that revised scale, who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 and continued to be on the rolls as on the day of the issue of the circular i.e. 9th October, 1997. 6. From a bare reference to the coverage clause of the scheme, as noticed above, it would appear that revised scale, who were on the rolls of the Corporation as on 1.1.1992 and continued to be on the rolls as on the day of the issue of the circular i.e. 9th October, 1997. This is not in dispute that all the writ petitioners retired from service under the VRS before the aforementioned circular was notified on 9th October, 1997. Therefore, on a plain reading of the said circular, it would appear that the writ petitioners are not entitled for the revised scale since they had already ceased to be the employees of the Corporation on account of voluntary retirement before the date on which the circular was brought into effect." 9. In view of the Division Bench decision aforesaid, the petitioner can not be allowed the benefit of revised scale in pursuance of Circular No. 5/97 dated 9th October, 1997. Such prayer is accordingly, rejected. 10. So far as the retention of the quarter is concerned, the agreement dated 14th January, 1997 remained in force for a period of eleven months to enable the petitioner to meet out the domestic problem, which may arise on immediate vacation of the quarter. The petitioner can not derive any advantage out of the a agreement i.e. retaintion of the quarter up to the age of superannuation 5 years and 5 months as the effect of the agreement lost its force since January, 1998. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Writ petition dismissed.