Locus standi to challenge a memorandum of understanding fails where employees accepted separation benefits and undertook to vacate quarters.

Petitioners who had accepted voluntary separation benefits and undertaken to vacate residential quarters could not maintain a writ challenge to the memorandum of understanding governing the arrangement. The court treated the attempt as lacking any enforceable legal grievance because the petitioners had already received the compensation due under the separation scheme and were seeking to retain occupation despite their earlier undertaking. Their claim for continued occupation of the quarters was therefore rejected for want of locus standi.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the memorandum of understanding and seek continuation in occupation of the quarters.

Analysis: The petitioners had already availed voluntary separation benefits, received the compensation due under the separation scheme, and had earlier undertaken to vacate the residential quarters within the stipulated time. In these circumstances, the challenge to the memorandum of understanding was found to be motivated by a desire to retain occupation of the quarters rather than by any enforceable legal grievance. The petitioners therefore could not maintain the writ petitions to question the arrangement between the authorities.

Conclusion: The petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the memorandum of understanding, and their claim for continued occupation of the quarters was rejected.

---