JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner, who is serving as an Executive in NALCO and is a member of NALCO Officers' Association, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the action of the Management of NALCO in reducing the ratio/quota of allotment of 'B' type quarters to the Executives in violation of the NALCO House Allotment Rules, 1994 because of which he is deprived of getting a quarters. 2. Petitioner's Association, i.e., the NALCO Officers 'Association represented through its General Secretary-Bijaya Kumar Parida had earlier come to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5293/2007 with a similar dispute relating to allotment of quarters.This Court disposed of the same by order 30.7.2008, the relevant part of which is extracted hereunder: ...we direct the Executive Director (S & P ), NALCO, O.P.1, to form a Committee, which shall be headed by him. In the said Committee, one representative from each of the Unions, i.e., NALCO Officers' Association, the present Petitioner, NALCO Progressive Employees' Union, O.P.4 and NALCO Shramik Congress Union, O.P.5 shall be its members and the said Committee shall decide the matter relating to allotment of quarters strictly in terms of the NALCO House Allotment rules, 1994 and the circular in Annexure-2 governing the filed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and make allotment accordingly. The interim Order Dated 8.5.2007 passed in this case shall continue for a period of two and half months or till a decision is taken by the aforesaid Committee, whichever is earlier. Mr. Palit, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, prays for leave to approach this Court, if any of the parties has any grievance against the decision of the Committee. No leave in this regard is required. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 3. The Petitioner In this Writ Petition makes an allegation that though the Committee constituted in terms of the order of this Court held its sittings and discussed the issues, yet 0.P. 1- Executive Director (S & P), NALCO, under extreme pressure from O.P.4-Nalco Progressive Employees' Union and O.P.5-Nalco Shramik Congress Union, has proposed as follows: a) Out of the present vacancy of 141 numbers of 'B' type quarters, 77 quarters have been reserved for Non-Executives. b) The remaining 63 quarters will be distributed between the Executives and the Non-Executives. b) The remaining 63 quarters will be distributed between the Executives and the Non-Executives. c) Out of the said 63 number of quarters, 25% is to be allotted to the Executives, which works out as 15 numbers of quarters for the Executives. The said proposal, according to the Petitioner, is a complete departure from the Rules. 4. The O.Ps. have filed a counter affidavit stating therein that in terms of the order of this Court, the Committee held its meeting to resolve the dispute and finally in the meeting held on 30.9.2008, in which the representatives of O.Ps.4 & 5-Unlons and Petitioner's Association as well as the Estate Department had participated and following the Rules, a decision was taken regarding allotment of quarters. It Is alleged that though the Estate Department and the representatives of two Unions signed the minutes of the said meeting, the representatives of the Petitioner's Association avoided to sign the same. Mr. Manoj Mishra, Learned Counsel for the O.Ps., refers to the minutes of the meeting held on 30.9.2008 annexed as Annexure-A/1, which is quoted hereunder: 1. At the outset, the representation submitted by the Officers' Association was read out and the issues raised therein were discussed. Attar protracted discussion the following were decided: a) The 77 B type houses that were decided to be allotted to the non-executives before the matter was stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, was to be allotted first. The original list of the allottees and the house numbers that were proposed for allotment on 20.02.2007 are to be followed for this allotment. b) Houses allotted to the executives and non-executives out of their respective quota (25% & 75%); and vacated on transfer from S & P Complex are to be merged with their respective categories for allotment. c) Houses vacated by employees on transfer on promotion to the executive cadre from the non-executive cadre, are to be merged in the list of houses to be allotted to the non-executives only. d) The 63 houses declared vacant by the Estate Department are to be allotted In the following way: 63 vacant houses (-) Houses vacated by executives on transfer Balance houses to be allotted (c)25% for the executives and 75% for the non-executives 2. The Chairman advised the Estate Department to process the file for allotment at the earliest. The meeting ended with thanks to the Chair. 5. The Chairman advised the Estate Department to process the file for allotment at the earliest. The meeting ended with thanks to the Chair. 5. Now the main question that fails for consideration relates to interpretation of the NALCO House Allotment Rules, 1994, as amended in 1996. So far as it relates to 'B' type quarters, Rule 04.00 of the Rules before its amendment In 1996 stipulates that 30% of available quarters would be reserved for SOTs, direct recruits supervisors, SI and above. Thereafter the aforesaid ratio of allotment was amended/ substituted in 1996 to the following effect: 25% of available 'B' type Quarters shall be reserved for allotment to Executives in EO to E2 grades, in lieu of 30% notified vide Circular No: NBC/GAD/32098/96, dated 19/06/1996. Rule 09.00 deals with constitution of House Allotment Advisory Committee (HAAC) and as per Rule 09.04, the Estate Manager shall place in the meeting of HAAC, list of vacant houses available for allotment together with a list of employees on the waiting list. 6. Mr. Mishra for the O.Ps. contended, that 25% of the available 'B' type quarters shall be reserved for allotment to the Executives in E0 to E2 grades. Mr. Section Palit for the Petitioner on the contrary submitted that the entire quarters that have been built till date, shall be brought into a pool and 25% thereof shall be carved out and reserved for allotment to the Executive in E0 and E2 grades. Mr. Mishra further contended that the quarters were constructed during the year 1966 when the Rules were not in vogue. According to him, before the aforesaid Rule, 1994 came into force, the quarters were allotted and occupied by some employees. Considering the entire quarters position, "30%" reservation of 'B' type quarters for Executive cadres was reduced to 25% by virtue of amendment in 1996. So, according to him, the O.Ps. have only followed the rule allotting quarters out of the available vacancy. We find that the dispute revolves round the interpretation of the word "available" appearing in Rule 04.00 above. The word "available" as per the Encyclopedia Legal and Commercial Dictionary by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud means "capable of being termed to account" to one's disposal; within one's reach. have only followed the rule allotting quarters out of the available vacancy. We find that the dispute revolves round the interpretation of the word "available" appearing in Rule 04.00 above. The word "available" as per the Encyclopedia Legal and Commercial Dictionary by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud means "capable of being termed to account" to one's disposal; within one's reach. The said word "available" in Funk and Wan all's Dictionary states the meaning "avail oneself of, "to take advantage of utilize." The meaning given in the Oxford Dictionary is also the same. Webster's Dictionary makes the word "avail" synonymous with 'benefit', 'profit', 'use' and 'utility'. A person can be stated to have availed himself of something only if he had taken advantage or profited by that thing or utilized it to his benefit On a careful reading of the word "available" used in R.04.00 means the quarters ready and fit for occupation of the allottees.Therefore, it can never include the quarters, which have already been allotted. There can be no other interpretation except the above, because if we accept the version of the Petitioner that the entire 'B' type quarters should be treated as one pool, out of which 25% shall be carved out, the same will create pandemonium and confusion leading to various problems like eviction of the persons, who have already been allotted with the quarters before the Rules came Into force. So, in our considered opinion, the Rules, as introduced in 1994 with the subsequent amendment, relate to the quarters physically vacant at the disposal of the Department for allotment. In such view of the matter, we direct that while allotting the quarters, the authorities shall take account of the total quarters physically lying vacant and fit for occupation by the allottees and make allotment with regard to 25% thereof. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. R.N. Biswal, J. I agree.