ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is ex-employee of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. having voluntary retired on 31.05.2005, who has approached this Court inter alia seeking the following direction:- (i) to direct the respondent to forthwith release gratuity amount along with statutory interest in the light of section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. (ii) for settlement of the quarter on lease basis as per the terms and conditions alloted to other ex-employee. (iii) to allow the petitioner and his family members to avail the medical facility of the respondent-employer. (iv) for the payment of bonus amount (v) to restrain the respondent for charging and realizing penal rent of quarter excessively. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner after his retirement sought to retain allotment of quarter in his name by submitting undertaking before the respondents requesting them to retain gratuity amount payable to him. The said undertaking is annexed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent on 16.02.2014. 4. The petitioner, however, submits that the said document is not in the nature of undertaking. Apart from the above, the petitioner claims to have made an application for license of quarter under licensing scheme of E/EF/F type under circular no. 01/07 vide application at Annexure-6 enclosing the Draft of Rs. 2980/-for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the respondents have been insisting upon realizing penal rent of quarter without allotting quarter in question, even after he has submitted his application, which is not proper in the eyes of law. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the gratuity amount. 5. According to the respondents, this issue is no longer res-integra. In a similar matter, learned Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 15 of 2013 in the case of Bokaro Steel Ltd. Vs. Shri Ram Naresh Singh & Ors., has categorically held in its judgment delivered on 24.01.2014 that once the respondent/writ petitioner had consciously signed the bond authorizing the retention of the amount of gratuity, it cannot be said that he had any justified reason to claim refund of the same, having continued in illegal retention of the quarter. The direction of the Single Judge was set aside in the said judgment. 6. The direction of the Single Judge was set aside in the said judgment. 6. The respondents contend that the scheme of 2007 under which the petitioner applied for has come to an end, therefore, no case can be made out for consideration of the petitioner's application under the said scheme. It is further stated that being an ex-employee, in unauthorized occupation of an official quarter of the respondent-BSL, the respondent cannot be compelled to grant medical facility of such erring ex-employee. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot prevent the respondent from realizing penal rent of the quarter in question for the period of unauthorized occupation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant materials on record. Admittedly, from the documents brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit filed on 16.01.2014, the petitioner had given undertaking to the respondents to retain the gratuity amount, without any coercion for retaining the said Quarter No. 07/D, Sector-II of the respondent. The said undertaking was unconditional. In similar circumstances when the learned Single Judge of this Court in W. P. (S) No. 373 of 2012 had directed the appellant-company to pay the entire gratuity amount retained by them along with statutory interest @ 6% per annum, the respondent-BSL went in appeal in the aforesaid case referred (supra) being LPA No. 15 of 2013. After noticing the facts of the said case wherein also the said writ petitioner was an unauthorized occupant, after permission to retain quarter had ended, damages were also levied by the respondent company, the learned Division Bench found that the learned Single Judge was not right in directing refund of the gratuity amount kept as security for retention of quarter as per undertaking submitted by the concerned employee/writ petitioner. The Division Bench, therefore, proceeded to set aside the judgment considering the issue raised from different angles. The relevant paragraph nos. 21 to 24 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:- “21. In G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. The Division Bench, therefore, proceeded to set aside the judgment considering the issue raised from different angles. The relevant paragraph nos. 21 to 24 of the said judgment is quoted herein-below:- “21. In G. Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman & Raman Ltd., reported in AIR 1952 SC 192 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court issues writ in cases where the subordinate Tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly with out jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess had resulted in manifest injustice. The facts brought on record in the present proceeding do not establish that in justice is caused to the respondent. In the present case, the respondent consciously signed the bond authorising the appellant to retain the amount of gratuity. This is not a case where the respondent waived his legal right to receive gratuity. There liance placed by the counsel for the respondent on Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is thus, misplaced. 22. The ratio of the decision in ONGC case and Wazir Chand’s case are squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the instant case the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the appellant ought to have approached the prescribed authority for determination of the penalrent/damages/mesne profits and that the appellants have no jurisdiction to determine the same themselves and to deduct the same from the post retiral benefits, without invoking the provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the appellants have no jurisdiction to determine the penalrent/damages/mesne profits. Before the Estate Officer, the appellant has filed Case No. A/E 07/2011 under Section 5, for eviction, and under Section 7, for payment of damages, of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Vide order dated 29.08.2012, the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction and also quantified the damages payable by the respondent. Before the Estate Officer, the appellant has filed Case No. A/E 07/2011 under Section 5, for eviction, and under Section 7, for payment of damages, of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Vide order dated 29.08.2012, the Estate Officer passed the order of eviction and also quantified the damages payable by the respondent. Even though the Estate Officer passed the order on 29.08.2012, the same was not kept in view by the learned Single Judge when the writ court allowed the writ petition on 10.12.2012 and thus, the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 23. The matter is to be considered from another angle also. It is also pertinent to note that in the writ petition the respondent had not disclosed the statement given by him in writing and also his continued retention of quarters and initiation of eviction proceedings by the appellant. The respondent has filed the writ petition on the only premise that the employer had not paid the gratuity amount. 24. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is purely discretionary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not right in exercising the extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction in favour of the respondent and on that ground also the order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.” 8. In the aforesaid legal position settled by the learned Division Bench of this Court, the claim of the petitioner for refund of the gratuity amount even after unauthorized retention of the official quarter cannot be accepted in law as well as on facts. It further appears from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had applied in a different category of quarter, which was not available for allotment on license. Therefore, the respondents have not considered his case. No fault can be found on the stand of the respondents as such. 9. It appears that the writ petitioner has been directed to vacate the quarter by the respondents. The respondents are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for eviction of the petitioner from the unauthorized occupation of the official quarter in question. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction granting relief in the instant matter. The respondents are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for eviction of the petitioner from the unauthorized occupation of the official quarter in question. 10. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction granting relief in the instant matter. For the reasons indicated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. I. A. No. 2135 of 2011 also stands disposed of.