eviction of quarters. Thus, such action on the part of the appellant authority is not based on the legal principle or any policy. Not only that; even the case law cited by the learned Advocate for the appellants do not permit such action and from the bare reading of the said cases, it appears that the retiral dues were never withhold by the concerned authority; but the same was paid after deducting penal rent etc. Thus, there is a great distinction between the two positions wherein; retiral dues are paid after adjusting penal rent etc., and as against this in the case on hand, the authority has withheld the payment of retiral dues on account of non-payment of penal rent. The judgment cited at bar by learned Advocate for the appellants is not at all helpful to them; but it is, on the contrary, against their own stand. The orders dated 30/04/2018 and 31/07/2018 have been passed on the premise that dues are outstanding. It is further stated that only after recovery of dues, followed by issuance of no due certificate, further followed by recovery of outstanding dues that the private respondents should be paid retirement dues. It is observed in the order that the amount of retiral dues should be paid only after possession of quarters are handed over and possession receipt is issued. The events that took place after disposal of writ petition by this Court on 27/06/2018 directing the appellant to consider the aspect of allocating quarters to private respondents. It appears that it is only by virtue of two communications, both dated 25/09/2018, GIDC required the private respondents to vacate the quarters. Till 25/09/2018, issue as regards unauthorized occupation would not arise. Be that as it may; the order dated 30/04/2018 and 31/07/2018 were passed by the appellants and appellants ought not to have treated any amount as outstanding on the part of the
