R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 2 is the wife of petitioner No. 1. In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, they challenge the legality of the eviction order at Annexure 6 passed by the Estate Officer, opposite party No. 3 affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, opposite party No. 4 as per the order at Annexure 7. ( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 while in employment was permitted by his employer Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant to occupy quarters No. A/ 94-JBR (previous No. Qr. 34, Type-VIII) in Sector 5, Rourkela. He came to occupy the said quarters from 8-9-1959. After his retirement from service on 31-8-1984, he was permitted to occupy it for a grace period of two months and after expiry of the said two months, permission granted to occupy the quarters was revoked. As he did not vacate, the employer directed him to vacate the premises by registered notice dt. 2-1-1985 which did not yield any result. The employer consequently treated petitioner No. 1 as an unauthorised occupant with effect from 31-10-1984 and filed P. P. Case No. 8085 of 1986 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Estate Officer, opposite party No. 3 for eviction. Petitioner No. 2 was subsequently added as opposite party No. 2 in the said eviction case on her own prayer Petitioner No. 1 submitted his cause resisting the eviction on the grounds (i) the quarters in question is not a public premises, (ii) the Estate Officer opposite party No. 3 is not competent to deal with the matter in absence of valid appointment by the appropriate authority, (iii) his wife, petitioner No. 2 also being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited was entitled to allotment of the said quarters after his retirement, and (iv) dependants of many retired employees who are in employment were given the benefit of occupying the same quarters. Petitioner No. 2 in her separate cause contended that she being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited shall be deemed to be an allottee of the quarters in question by virtue of her eligibility and is entitled for regularisation of the quarters in her favour. Petitioner No. 2 in her separate cause contended that she being an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited shall be deemed to be an allottee of the quarters in question by virtue of her eligibility and is entitled for regularisation of the quarters in her favour. ( 3 ) THE Estate Officer by his order dt. 7-12-1989 as per Annexure 6 overruled the objections raised by the petitioners and held that the occupation of the quarters by petitioner No. 1 after his retirement is without any authority and in absence of any allotment in favour of petitioner No. 2 in respect of the quarters in question, she has also no case. Accordingly, he directed eviction. Against the said order, petitioners preferred P. P. Appeal No. 13 of 1989 before the District Judge, Sundargarh who after hearing has dismissed the appeal. ( 4 ) PETITIONER No. 1 Goura Mohan Giri argued the matter in person. We heard him at length. Counsel for the Steel Authority of India Limited was also heard. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that petitioner No. 1 on being allotted the quarters in question came to occupy it on 8-5-1959. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 31-8-1984. After allowing the grace period of two months for occupation following his superannuation, permission granted for occupation was revoked with effect from 31-10-1984. Despite service of notice asking him to vacate the quarters, he did not vacate and continued to occupy the same. ( 6 ) SECTION 2 (e) of the Act defines 'public premises'. It reads, so far as relevant, as follows: ";2. (e): ";public premises"; means- (1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of, the Central Government, and includes. . . . . . . . . (2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,- (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fiftyzone per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first-mentioned company. "; the premises (quarters) belongs to the Steel Authority of India Limited, Rourkela Steel Plant, which is a Government Company and as such it is a 'public premises' as defined in S. 2 (e ). 'unauthorised occupation' has been defined in S. 2 (g) of the Act to mean the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation and includes continuance in occupation by any person of the public premise after the authority under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever. After the retirement of petitioner No. 1 from service with effect from 31-8-1984 and after allowing grace period of occupation for two months as provided under the Rules, his occupation with effect from 31-10-1984 is undoubtedly unauthorised and he has rightly been held to be an unauthorised occupant. ( 7 ) THE authority of the Estate Officer in dealing with the eviction proceeding has been questioned on the ground of his lack of jurisdiction. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines ";estate officer"; to mean an officer appointed as such by the Centraal Government under S. 3. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette appoint such persons being gazetted officers of Government or officers of equivalent rank of the statutory authority, as it thinks fit, to be estate officers for the purposes of the Act. It appears from the discussion made in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment of the District Judge that the Central Government in the Ministry of Steel and Mines by different notifications has been appointing different officers as Estate Officers of the Steel Authority of India Limited for different periods. In view of such conferment of powers to officers as Estate Officers, the impugned proceedings having been dealt with by such officers who were appointed as Estate Officers by the Central Government, we do not see any lack of jurisdiction in their dealing with the matter. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that petitioner No. 2 was also an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited (it is stated at the Bar that she has in the meanwhile retired from service ). There is no order of allotment of the quarters in question in her favour. Relying on Rule 7. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispute that petitioner No. 2 was also an employee of the Steel Authority of India Limited (it is stated at the Bar that she has in the meanwhile retired from service ). There is no order of allotment of the quarters in question in her favour. Relying on Rule 7. 07 of the House Allotment Rules, 1972 and clauses 4. 1 and 4. 2 of the House Rent Allowances Rules, 1976, it was contended that the quarters in question should have been allotted to petitioner No. 2 after retirement of petitioner No. 1 from service by regularising the same and in any case she shall be ";deemed to be an allottee"; and the petitioners cannot be held to be unauthorised occupants. On examination of the relevant rules, we have no hesitation to hold that the contention of the petitioners based on those two sets of rules has no substance. Rule 7. 07 of the House Allotment Rules, 1972 reads as follows: ";quarters may be allotted to one of the dependants of a retired employee, namely, wife/husband/son/daughter if in employment of the Company on the date of such retirement provided the retired employee was in occupation of the quarters allotted to him/her and the retired employee applies to the Estate Officer in writing along with his/her dependant in employment that he/she would be living with the dependant seeking allotment of quarters. The term 'retired employee' in the sub-rule shall include employees, who have been granted voluntary retirement of the Company. "; it is a provision which gives discretion to the employer to allot the particular quarters being occupied by a retired employee to one of his dependants if that dependant is in employment of the Steel Authority of India Limited on the date of retirement of the principal allottee. The rule requires an application to be made to the Estate Officer who on consideration of the same may allot such quarters to the dependant. The said rule does not confer a vested right in a dependant to get the quarters, occupied by a retired personnel, allotted or regularised in his favour. Admittedly no order has been passed by the competent authority allotting the quarters in question in favour of petitioner No. 2. The said rule does not confer a vested right in a dependant to get the quarters, occupied by a retired personnel, allotted or regularised in his favour. Admittedly no order has been passed by the competent authority allotting the quarters in question in favour of petitioner No. 2. In absence of any such order in her favour, the claim made by petitioner No. 2 in respect of the quarters in question is misconceived. In any case, it appears from the order of the Estate Officer by Annexure 6 that the employer allotted quarters No. F / 24-23 R in Section 7 to petitioner No. 2 which she did not choose to accept. The fact that another quarters in Sector 7 was allotted to petitioner No. 2 indicates that the competent authority did not exercise its discretion in allotting the disputed quarters to petitioner No. 2 after retirement of her husband. Clauses 4. 1 and 4. 2 of the House Rent Allowance Rules, 1976 cover a different field of operation. The contention of the petitioners that petitioner No. 2 shall be deemed to be an allottee by virtue of clauses 4. 1 and 4. 2 of the House Rent Allowance Rules, 1976 has to be stated to be rejected. They read as follows: ";4. 1. Employees who are covered by the Wage Agreement dated 30/07/1975 shall be eligible for House Rent Allowance, provided that he / she has not been allotted accommodation by the Company. 4. 2. Where both husband and wife are employees of the Company and residing in a house allotted to one of them, the other will also be deemed to be an allottee and will not, therefore, be eligible for House Rent Allowance. "; it appears from Annexure 18 that the House Rent Allowance Rules, 1976 were framed for employees covered by the Wage Agreement dt. 30-7-1975 and working in the Steel Plant locations. Clause 4. 1 provides that employees covered by the concerned Wage Agreement shall be eligible for house rent allowance provided that the said employee has not been provided with accommodation by the Company. Clause 4. 2 disentitles house rent allowance to one of the spouses if both of them reside in a house allotted to the other spouse. Clause 4. 1 provides that employees covered by the concerned Wage Agreement shall be eligible for house rent allowance provided that the said employee has not been provided with accommodation by the Company. Clause 4. 2 disentitles house rent allowance to one of the spouses if both of them reside in a house allotted to the other spouse. Having regard to such occupation, the spouse who has not been allotted the quarters shall be deemed to be an allottee so that he or she would not take claim for house rent allowance under Cl. 4. 1. For that limited purpose under Cl. 4. 2 one of them shall be deemed to be an allottee and it does not extend to cover cases coming under the House Allotment Rules. ( 9 ) LASTLY it was casually submitted by the petitioners that many retired employees were given the benefit of occupying some quarters by their dependants and such benefit should have been extended to them. This plea is not available to be raised by the petitioners, firstly petitioner No. 2 has also retired from service and has no right to occupy any quarters belonging to her erstwhile employer, the Steel Authority of India Limited and secondly if any such concession was given by the employer in contravention of the relevant rules, in allotment of quarters, petitioners cannot ask for a writ of mandamus seeking such indulgence from their ex-employer. ( 10 ) THE petitioner also contended that as huge amount is due to him from the employer on the count of retirement benefit, no order of eviction could be passed. The contention is devoid of any merit. As the petitioners are ex-employees cannot have premium over the premises in question merely because some of their dues might be pending with their employer. Once the order of eviction has been passed on valid grounds, the same has to be given effect to and the petitioners are bound to vacate the premises. ( 11 ) WE have perused the impugned judgments and after hearing the parties, we are satisfied that they do not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record so as to be corrected by a writ of certiorari. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The interim order dated 25-9-1991 is hereby vacated. ( 13 ) G. B. PATNAIK, J. I agree. Petition dismissed. .