JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-03-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2120 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the respondent herein for allotting Qtr. No. IC 121 (C-type quarter) to the respondent, on long term lease as per the scheme of Bokaro Steel Limited, has been allowed. 3. The facts which are not in dispute is that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) had superannuated from the post of General Manager, Town Division, Bokaro Steel plant on 31-01-2004. The writ petitioner, before his superannuation, had made an application for voluntary retirement but the same was regretted by the management and the writ petitioner was persuaded to continue on his job as he was involved in implementation of some important projects. The said projects were duly completed after which the writ petitioner attained the age of superannuation. During the service period of the writ petitioner, a Circular dated 01-07-2003 came into existence being “SAIL Scheme for leasing of houses to employees-2003” whose primary goal was to enable employees/ex-employees and spouses/legal heirs of deceased employees to acquire company’s houses/flats on long term lease basis and the last date for receiving application was 25-08-2003. Subsequently, the period for submission of application was modified and extended to 30-09-2003. The writ petitioner had made an application on a typed paper on 06-09-2003 for purchase of a “C-type” quarter on lease basis as per the scheme of long-term lease floated by SAIL as he was preparing to shift to “C-type” quarter from the “B-type” quarter he was earlier allotted. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he was allotted C-type Qtr. No. IC/121 where he shifted and he is still in possession of the same. Recommendations had been made by several higher authorities to allot the said quarter on long term lease to the writ petitioner as a special case. Since the Management of Bokaro Steel Limited was loathe in passing any order of allotment of the quarter on long term lease basis to the writ petitioner, he was constrained to file a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 2120 of 2006 in which the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 was passed directing the Management of B.S.L. to allot Qtr. Since the Management of Bokaro Steel Limited was loathe in passing any order of allotment of the quarter on long term lease basis to the writ petitioner, he was constrained to file a writ application being W.P.(C) No. 2120 of 2006 in which the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 was passed directing the Management of B.S.L. to allot Qtr. No. IC/121 (C-type) on long term lease in favor of the writ petitioner and being aggrieved with the same, SAIL has preferred the present letters patent appeal 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-SAIL that the impugned order is perverse on account of the fact that various facets of the case have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It has been submitted that the writ petitioner, in his capacity as General Manager, Town Division, B.S.L., had got revamped Qtr. No. IC/121 and had got the same allotted to him at the fag end of his service carrier. The discretion, according to Mr. Sinha, lies with the competent authority in allotment of quarter on long term lease and no vested right accrues to the writ petitioner. While exercising such discretion, various factors have also to be taken into consideration and there has to be a judicious approach to such allotment. Even the application seeking allotment on long term lease was not made in the prescribed format but on a typed paper but even then, the appellant/Management is still willing to take a considerate view of such application but if the writ petitioner is allowed a quarter according to his choice, the right of consideration of allotment will be taken away from the appellant-Management. It has therefore been prayed that the issue of allotment be reverted back to the management for a fresh consideration on the claim of the writ petitioner. 5. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (respondent herein) has defended the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 by submitting that the eligibility of the writ petitioner to come within the purview of the long term lease scheme of the company is beyond any doubt and an application was also made prior to the closing date as envisaged under the modified and extended scheme and recommendation was also made by the competent authorities which strengthens the case of the writ petitioner for grant of allotment of the said quarter. The writ petitioner is residing in IC/121 (C-type) for more than two decades and it would be a travesty of justice if he is asked to relocate to a different quarter. Mr. Krishna, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Circular dated 01-07-2003 while submitting that the same demarcates leasing out quarters/flats on “as is where is basis” which can be construed to mean that the eligible persons applying for long term lease will be allotted the quarter which they have retained or residing. The writ petitioner, in such scenario, does have an inalienable right to be allotted the same quarter which is retained by him on long term basis. The writ petitioner has been repeatedly discriminated against as his V.R.S. application was not considered in the affirmative and now the management is depriving him of being allotted the said quarter on long term lease basis. It has thus been submitted that the learned Single Judge, having considered all aspects of the case, has directed the appellant for allotting Qtr. No. IC/121 (C-type) to the writ petitioner and there being no error in the impugned order dated 31-03-2022, the same does not necessitate any interference. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the various affidavits on record. 7. On a perusal of the circular dated 01-07-2003 it transpires that Clause 2 of the said Circular illuminates the eligibility criteria which includes employees who are superannuating or opting for V.R.S./ex-employees, spouses/legal heirs of deceased employee in authorized occupation of the company’s allotted houses. Clause “6” reveals the manner and criteria of making such application. The eligibility of the writ petitioner in making such application for allotment is unquestionable as the writ petitioner had applied while being in service on 06-09-2003 and would thus come within the purview of “the employees who are superannuating” as conceived in the said circular. It is no doubt true that the writ petitioner had not applied in the prescribed format as envisioned in Clause 6 of the Circular since the writ petitioner had made an application on a plain paper but considering the fact that such technical infirmity has not been seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the appellants-SAIL and the writ petitioner being undoubtedly eligible, the same would be an aberration without putting a cloud of suspicion over such eligibility. So far as the question of the writ petitioner having a vested right for being allotted Qtr. No. IC/121 (C-type) is concerned, the “as is where is basis” as depicted in the Circular which has much been harped upon by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the same would mean the conditions of the quarters to be allotted with all its faults and defects and not the particular quarter in which such eligible allottee is residing. The discretion, therefore, vests in the Management and this Court would be reluctant to interfere in such policy matters more so, when no arbitrariness on the part of the Management is borne out from the records of the case. 8. The learned Single Judge has considered the delay on the part of the Management to grant V.R.S. to the writ petitioner, but it seems that such action on the part of the Management was never raised by the writ petitioner before any Forum. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the period spent by the writ petitioner in the said quarter but here again, we must reiterate that the period spent would be inconsequential and no vested right would accrue to the writ petitioner over Qtr. No. IC/121 (C-type). 9. Based on the reasonings noted above, we come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2120 of 2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and consequently, the same is hereby set aside. However, since we have held that the writ petitioner is eligible for being allotted a C-type quarter on long term lease and since it appears from the impugned order that several quarters are still vacant, the Management/appellant is directed to take every endeavor in order to allot a C-type quarter to the writ petitioner other than IC/121 (C-type) and this exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Once the order of allotment on long term lease is issued and the formalities completed within the period stipulated above, the writ petitioner shall vacate the quarter he is residing in, that is, IC/121 (C-type) within a period of 2 months from the date of allotment of another C-type quarter in his favor. 10. This Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. 11. 10. This Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of. 11. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.