ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. The question involved in the writ petition is about the right of the employees of the petitioner/association to retain the residential quarters even after the lapse of time granted by the respondents to vacate the residential quarters. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is further arbitrariness committed inasmuch as the rent has been reviewed and enhanced arbitrarily w.e.f. 1-2-2001. Relief is also claimed to quash the notices P-1, P-2, P-3 and P-4. The notices indicate that to whom the notices were issued had retired and their retention of quarters was permissible under the rules for a period of one year. They were required to vacate by 15-7-2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that much number of quarters are lying vacant. Employees who are members of the petitioner-union and petitioners 2 and 3 served for a long period. The respondent is a sick unit and has been so declared by B.I.F.R. They do not require the quarters in question. As such the retired employees should be permitted to occupy the quarters as the requirement does not exist of these quarters to others. The notices requiring to vacate the quarters is unconstitutional and is impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that without recourse to the process of law even a lessee whose lease has come to an end cannot be evicted. He further points out the letter of the Collector, East Nimar, Khandwa dated 10-7-2000 (Annex.P-6) complaining of arbitrary increase in the rent of the houses by the respondents. 4. The respondents stand is that petitioner No. 1/Union is not a registered association of all the employees. It cannot be said to be an aggrieved person to file a writ petition. The respondent is a public sector undertaking. Petitioners 2 and 3 are retired employees and they have no right, title or interest in the quarters when once they have been paid all the retiral dues. Voluntary retirement scheme was enforced. According to the said scheme employees have opted retirement. It was also the condition that retiral benefit should be paid to the employees seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme on the condition of vacating the quarters. The quarters to the employees were allotted by virtue of the factum of their services with the answering respondents. Voluntary retirement scheme was enforced. According to the said scheme employees have opted retirement. It was also the condition that retiral benefit should be paid to the employees seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme on the condition of vacating the quarters. The quarters to the employees were allotted by virtue of the factum of their services with the answering respondents. Prayer was made to permit for retention of quarters for 6 months or one year which was accepted on the following terms:- (a) Employees seeking voluntary retirement and on vacating the occupied quarter within 6 months normal rent shall be charged. (b) After the expiry of another 6 months the standard rent shall be payable. (c) After the expiry of 1 year from the date of retirement if the retiring person is not vacating the quarter and no vacant possession is handed over, he has to pay the prevailing market rent of the aforesaid quarter as may be prescribed by the respondent. 5. It is further contended that employees are under obligation to vacate the said quarters. The employees have given in writing that they would be paying the rent and will not have any objection towards the payment of market rent if the occupied quarters are not handed over back. The retired employees who have given in writing, their written applications are Annexure R-3. The stand of the respondents is that there are more than 150 ex-employees who have taken all retiral benefits but have not handed over the vacant possession of the quarters. It is also submitted that more than 150 applications are pending for allotment of quarters. The quarters are of different grades and categories and as and when the employees are promoted or their pay scale is enhanced then according to the entitlement of the employees, they are entitled to the other quarters. Under the directions of the Nodal Ministry and the Government of India's letter dated 19-1-2001 the revised rent has been realised w.e.f. 1-2-2001. Sufficient time was afforded to the employees to vacate the quarters. 6. The question for consideration is whether the notices issued to the retired employees to vacate the quarters suffers with arbitrariness. It is clear that service rules do not provide for retention of quarters after retirement. The respondents have allowed retention of quarters for one year after retirement. Sufficient time was afforded to the employees to vacate the quarters. 6. The question for consideration is whether the notices issued to the retired employees to vacate the quarters suffers with arbitrariness. It is clear that service rules do not provide for retention of quarters after retirement. The respondents have allowed retention of quarters for one year after retirement. It is also to be considered in the background of the fact that voluntary retirement scheme was floated in which this condition was imposed that employees shall have to vacate the quarters after retirement and for vacating the quarters reasonable time was granted and thereafter the rent was to be charged for 6 months at the normal rate. After expiry of 6 months standard rent was to be charged and after lapse of one year market rent was to be charged. This cannot be said to be arbitrary. Employees have accepted this situation. 7. Once the employee has retired he has no legal or constitutional right to occupy the quarter. Shri Kale counsel for the petitioners at a great length persuaded this Court to accept the submission that it is in violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also referred the case of Banglore Medical Trust vs. B.S. Mudappa, AIR 1991 SC 1902 , in which their Lordships have observed as under:- The executive or the administrative authority must not be oblivious that in a democratic set up the community being sovereign the exercise of discretion must be guided by the inherent philosophy that the exercise of discretion is accountable for his action. It is to be tested on anvil of the rule of law and fairness or justice particularly if computing interests of members of society is involved. Was this adhered to by any of the authority? Unfortunately not. 8. True it is that every executive or administrative action must be guided by philosophy that exercise of discretion is in accordance with rule of law and fairness or justice. In the instant case it cannot be said that merely because the Company may not require the accommodation for some time or other vacant accommodation is available, then after retirement asking an employee to vacate the accommodation cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness. In the instant case it cannot be said that merely because the Company may not require the accommodation for some time or other vacant accommodation is available, then after retirement asking an employee to vacate the accommodation cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness. The contention is not acceptable that when the employees have worked for a long time, they should have been allowed to retain the accommodation. If this submission is accepted then the time may come when the on service incumbents who require the accommodation may not be able to obtain it. 9. Next submission is whether the employees can be thrown by muscle power. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Dharmander Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997 in which following observation was made:- A lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra-judicially by use of force, from a lessee, even after the expiry or earlier termination of the lease by forfeiture or otherwise. The use of the expression 're-entry' in the lease deed does not authorize extra-judicial methods to resume possession. Under law, the possession of a lessee, even after the expiry or its earlier termination is juridical possession and forcible dispossession is prohibited; a lessee cannot be dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. In the present case, the fact that the lessor is the State does not place it in any higher or better position. On the contrary, it is under an additional inhibition stemming from the requirement that all actions of Government and Governmental authorities should have a 'legal pedigree'. In Bishandas vs. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 69 : AIR 1961 SC 1570 , this Court said (at PP. 1574 and 1575 of AIR): We must, therefore, repel the argument based on the contention that the petitioners were trespassers and could be removed by an executive order. The argument is not only specious but highly dangerous by reason of its implications and impact on law and order. Before we part with this case, we feel it our duty to say that the executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law. The argument is not only specious but highly dangerous by reason of its implications and impact on law and order. Before we part with this case, we feel it our duty to say that the executive action taken in this case by the State and its officers is destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law. Therefore, there is no question in the present case of the Government thinking of appropriating to itself an extra-judicial right of re-entry. Possession can be resumed by Government only in a manner known to or recognized by law. It cannot resume possession otherwise than in accordance with law. Government is, accordingly, prohibited from taking possession otherwise than in due course of law. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they cannot throw the employees by muscle power. They will take steps in accordance with law in case the employees fail to vacate the quarters. 11. Last submission is about the arbitrary increase in the rate of rent. So far as the petitioners are concerned, for initial 6 months they allowed to retain the accommodation at normal rent, thereafter at the standard rent and after lapse of one year at market rate. It cannot be said that fixation of the rent which was revised on by revision of pay structure is arbitrary in any manner. The facts are missing to show that how the fixation of rent mentioned in para 5-8 is arbitrary. In the instant case the rent which is prescribed after lapse of one year is the market rent which retired employees are bound to pay as they have no right to retain the accommodations after their retirement. 12. An application for amendment to incorporate the relief that respondents be restrained from taking possession of the quarters in occupation of the members of the petitioner-Sangh either forcibly or otherwise be quashed. With respect to unlawful mode of taking possession the counsel for respondents has already made the statement that recourse shall be taken to the proceedings in accordance with law and thus the relief claimed by the petitioner stands satisfied in part and relief was already claimed in the writ petition to quash the orders P-1 to P-4 in which no merit has been found. Thus the amendment also does not advance the case of the petitioner any further. 13. Thus the amendment also does not advance the case of the petitioner any further. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed. Cost on parties.