L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE subject matter of both the writ petitions is same. Hence they are disposed of through a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in both the writ petitions are a either retired Government employees or legal heirs of the deceased Government employees. The Government constructed staff quarters in the year 1969 at Khammam to accommodate the employees of the nagarjuna Sagar Project (for short the project ). At the relevant point of time the construction of the Project was in progress. With the completion of the Project, several quarters became surplus. Employees of the other departments were also allotted such quarters. The quarters are said to have become old and are in a dilapidated condition. Pursuant to the policy evolved by the Government to allot surplus land or quarters belonging to the Project to other needy departments or to dispose of the same in public auction, steps were taken to evict the petitioners from the quarters in their occupation. ( 3 ) THE petitioners contend that being retired employees or dependents of the deceased retired employees; they are entitled to be sold the quarters in the occupation. According to them, the government had constituted a Committee to evolve a procedure in this regard, and even before a decision is taken the petitioners are sought to be evicted. ( 4 ) THE District Collector, Khammam, filed counter affidavits in both the writ petitions. According to him, the quarters in the old colony have become dilapidated. It is stated that a new colony was constructed for the employees of the Project and they have been allotted quarters in the new colony. It is stated that the buildings in the old colony have become dilapidated, posing threat to the lives of the inmates, and the petitioners were required to vacate the same in that context. It was further stated that some of the petitioners have approached the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) by filing OANo. 547/2003 and that the same has since been disposed of granting four months time to the petitioners therein to vacate the quarters. The respondents contend that the petitioners do not have any fundamental right to continue in possession of the Government quarters or to insist on sale of the same. The respondents contend that the petitioners do not have any fundamental right to continue in possession of the Government quarters or to insist on sale of the same. Placing reliance on Fundamental Rule (FR) 45-A, the respondents contend that the petitioners were under obligation to vacate the quarters within one month from the date of retirement from service. ( 5 ) SRI. A. Anantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were in Government service for several decades and when the quarters themselves are surplus, the petitioners were entitled to be sold the same. He contends that on several representations made by the associations and individuals, the government had constituted a Committee and the matter is under examination. He alleges that there was no justification for the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners under those circumstances. ( 6 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for irrigation, on the other hand, submits that the municipal Commissioner and other engineering staff inspected the quarters in occupation of the petitioners and the same are said to be in dilapidated condition, posing threat of the lives of the inmates. He submits that no Government employee has a fundamental or legal right to be sold any government quarter or other property. It is his contention that the continuance of the petitioners in the quarters in is violation of fr. 45-A and the directions issued by the tribunal in O. A. No. 547 of 2003. ( 7 ) THE petitioners either retired government employees or the dependents of the retired employees. The quarters in question were constructed for the employees of the Project. With the completion of the Project, several quarters become surplus. It was in that context the employees of other departments were also allotted the quarters. The petitioners claim to have made a representation to the government for sale of these quarters. The respondents insisted that having regard to the dilapidated condition of the quarters, the question of sale of the same to the petitioners, at this stage, does not arise. ( 8 ) IT needs to be seen as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be sold the government quarters, assuming that the quarters in question are in a proper condition. Petitioners are not able to place any provision of law or decided cases in support of their claim. ( 8 ) IT needs to be seen as to whether the petitioners are entitled to be sold the government quarters, assuming that the quarters in question are in a proper condition. Petitioners are not able to place any provision of law or decided cases in support of their claim. Staff quarters are meant for the benefit of the employees who are in service. F. R. 45-A provides a breathing time for the employees who retire from service. They are under obligation to vacate the Government quarter within one month from the date of retirement. The object underlying the same is to ensure that the successors in office of such retired employees are also provided the accommodation. ( 9 ) AS observed earlier, with the completion of the construction of the nagarjuna Sagar Dam lands and buildings used for that purpose become surplus. The government issued G. O. MS. No. 29 dated 26-2-1999. It refers to the report submitted by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, which had examined the matter and suggested steps. A policy decision was taken to dispose of such surplus properties through tender-cum-auction system. The policy was required to be implemented by the Committee constituted for each district, comprising of the District Collector, Joint Collector and superintending Engineer of the relevant engineering department. The manner in which the properties were to be disposed of was indicated as under:"the Committee shall first consider how best to utilize the land and building for the development purpose. While doing this exercise, they have to take into account the need and requirements of departments like social welfare, Tourism, etc. Under no circumstances, allotment to any department is made in anticipation of further sanction of Government funds to utilize the land and buildings or associated facilities. If the Committee finds that there are no immediate takers or users of this land or buildings, they should dispose it of in an auction-cum-tender system, the proceeds of which will be remitted to the government. The proceeds of this money will be utilized for the infrastructure development of the local areas as well as the district. "it was in this context that the surplus properties of the Project situated in the khammam district were sought to be disposed. As long as the policy contained in g. O. Ms. The proceeds of this money will be utilized for the infrastructure development of the local areas as well as the district. "it was in this context that the surplus properties of the Project situated in the khammam district were sought to be disposed. As long as the policy contained in g. O. Ms. No. 29 dated 26-2-1999 is not varied or substituted, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents. ( 10 ) THE petitioners referred to a Memo dated 12-7-1999 wherein the Secretary to government in lrrigation Department had directed the Chief Engineer, Nagarjuna sagar Project, Hill Colony, Nalgonda District, to maintain status quo till a decision is taken on the recommendations of the Committee of Nagarjuna Sagar Project. No reference is made in this Memo to G. O. Ms. No. 29 dated 26-2-1999. A vague reference is made to "committee on Nagarjuna Sagar Properties" but it is not stated as to when such a committee was constituted and , if so by whom. This Memo does not have the effect of watering down the policy contained in g. O. Ms. No. 29 dated 26-2-1999. The petitioners have already moved the Tribunal to continue the possession of the quarters. The Tribunal granted Four months time. Having availed the remedy in the Tribunal, they are at least some of them. have filed these writ petitions. ( 11 ) A Government employee is not placed on higher pedestal in the matter of distribution of largesses of the State. It was not as if such employees have rendered any free service so that they need to be rewarded at a subsequent stage. Each and every aspect of their service is taken care of by the relevant Service Rules. Several benefits are extended to them, both while in service and after retirement. Enjoyment of a public property, to the exclusion of the others, should be on the basis of statutory rule. Vague endorsement made by an official does not confer any right on the retired employees. In fact, if it comes to choosing between a retired employee and an ordinary citizen, in the matter of extending any State benefit, the balance should swing in favour of an ordinary citizen, since he never enjoyed any benefit from the government. Vague endorsement made by an official does not confer any right on the retired employees. In fact, if it comes to choosing between a retired employee and an ordinary citizen, in the matter of extending any State benefit, the balance should swing in favour of an ordinary citizen, since he never enjoyed any benefit from the government. If the properties are disposed of in public auction, the retired employee will be in a better position to offer more, compared to an ordinary citizen without any employment or other resources. At any rate, disposal of the property through public auction is not only a known and approved method, but also would ensure transparency and proper value for the property being disposed of. Viewed from any angle, a retired employee does not have any preferential right to purchase the public property, otherwise than through public auction. ( 12 ) IN the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is categorically stated that the quarters in occupation of the petitioners have become dilapidated. The municipal Commissioner is said to have inspected the same with his technical staff and opined that the lives of the inmates are no longer safe. This averment in the counter affidavits has not been controverted by the petitioners. Hence, apart from absence of any right in favour of the petitioners, on the ground of public safety also, they deserve to be evicted. ( 13 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be n order as to costs.