JUDGMENT : Valmiki J. Mehta, J. CM No. 14381/2013 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM stands disposed of. WP(C) 6616/2013 1. By this writ petition, petitioner claims the relief of being paid his retiral dues. This writ petition is filed in October, 2013 and petitioner’s services were terminated in terms of the orders of the departmental authorities w.e.f 17.3.1998 i.e about 15 years earlier. 2. The admitted facts which appear on record are that petitioner as an employee of the respondent no.1 was allotted an accommodation at 7670, G.T. Road, Subzi Mandi, Clock Tower, Delhi-7. Petitioner in spite of being transferred from Delhi did not vacate the accommodation at Delhi. After repeated reminders, departmental proceedings were initiated and they culminated in dismissal of the petitioner from services w.e.f 17.3.1998. Petitioner still obdurately refused to vacate the official accommodation and the official accommodation was ultimately vacated only in 2011. Petitioner had challenged the orders of the departmental authorities in WP(C) 5263/1998 and which petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court as per its judgment dated 9.12.2011. Para 9 of the said judgment would have some bearing and is therefore reproduced as under:- “9. However, the facts of the present case stare us in the face. The petitioner retained unauthorized occupation of the official accommodation for 35 years i.e. for a term longer than his service with the respondent. He refused to vacate the same even after the dismissal order had been issued against him. He refused to vacate the same for eight years after the date of superannuation also. The petitioner is found to have violated the law with impunity and deserves no sympathy or any equitable relief from the Court. The benefit enjoyed by the petitioner from the unauthorized occupation of the premises situated in a prime sought after locality for 35 long years is far far more than the retiral dues of which the petitioner may have been deprived. In fact the counsel for the petitioner could not even inform us whether there was/is any provision for pension in the respondent company. In fact the counsel for the petitioner could not even inform us whether there was/is any provision for pension in the respondent company. The petitioner is found to have abused the process of law by embroiling the respondent in litigations, representations and appeals at various stages which is also evident from the long period of six years for which the disciplinary proceedings remained pending & fifteen years since when proceedings under Section 630 supra are pending. In fact, it is the respondent who has shown extreme tolerance in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner after 16 years of the petitioner continuing in unauthorized occupation of the premises. The petitioner has vacated the premises now only, perhaps seeing that he could not retain the same any longer. Such litigants ought not to be encouraged in any manner by the Courts. We have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner is willing to pay the market rent, as may be assessed, of the premises for the 35 years of unauthorized occupation. No such willingness is shown. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” (underling added) 3. Therefore, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner as an obdurate and recalcitrant employee in gross violation of service rules illegally held on to an accommodation for as long as 35 years i.e even more than the period of service of the petitioner. When the Division Bench put a suggestion which is recorded in its judgment dated 9.12.2011 as to whether petitioner is ready to pay market rent, obviously, the petitioner declined. The fact of the matter is that the entitlement to claim retiral dues firstly arose in favour of the petitioner when he was dismissed from service on 17.3.1998, though of course, the orders of the departmental authorities were challenged and which ultimately achieved finalization in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 9.12.2011, however, the fact of the matter is that extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should only be exercised in favour of deserving persons. As stated above, petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a person deserving of any relief from this Court. As stated above, petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a person deserving of any relief from this Court. Obviously, lot of benefit (prime estate in Delhi is valuable) would have been taken by the petitioner on account of illegally holding on to the accommodation for as long as 35 years and which would have caused loss to the employer-respondent no.1, and therefore, the employer-respondent no.1 is entitled to contend that nothing is payable to the petitioner on account of retiral dues, and which can and may have been adjusted towards claims of the respondent no.1 against the petitioner for the illegal accommodation for the allotted quarter. 4. Counsel for the petitioner did contend very seriously that the impugned order which is passed is a non-speaking order of one line stating that nothing is due, and this order is dated 1.1.2013, however, in a case like this, I do not think that any speaking order is required to be passed when the petitioner himself is guilty of illegally holding on to the accommodation for as long as 35 years and surely with respect to which illegal action appropriation of the amounts due to the petitioner have taken place by the respondent no.1 as the loss to the employer is the market rent payable during the period of illegal occupation as long as of 35 years. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.