Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents 4 & 5 to disburse the amount due to the Petitioner pursuant to her retirement from the service as HeadMistress in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School. 2. Petitioner was employed as Head Mistress in Girls Higher Secondary School which is under the control of Respondents 4 and 5. The Petitioner retired on attaining superannuation as Head Mistress on 31.05.2001. Case of Petitioner is that on her retirement, State Government has sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,33,865/- towards earn leave and half pay leave encashment and a sum of more than Rs.one lakh towards retiral benefits. 3. Case of the Petitioner is that these amounts have been withheld by Respondents 4 and 5 without any justification. In the letter dated 21.04.2001, the Petitioner has requested the Respondents to disburse the amount which is due to her and there was no action on the part of Respondents 4 and 5 to disburse the amount due to the Petitioner. 4. The Respondents have filed counter contending as under: As per the rules for allotment of quarters in the Corporation an employee after his/her retirement can be allowed to retain the quarters only for 4 months on subsidized rent etc. As the Petitioners husband, Alphonse has failed to surrender the quarter immediately after the expiry of 4 months, action was taken against him under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. The Petitioners husband without vacating the quarters, has filed a Civil Suit along with Petitioner before the Sub Court, Cuddalore against the Corporation praying a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Corporation quarters and also for mandatory injunction directing the Corporation to allot D type quarters to the Petitioner and obtained an exparte order of interim injunction, restraining the Corporation from evicting both of them from the quarters and also not to interfere with their peaceful enjoyment and occupation of the quarters. Taking advantage of interim injunction Petitioner continued to occupy the quarters unauthorized with all amenities of water, electricity etc. But Petitioner and her husband has never cared to remit allied charges for the said quarters from 1993. As a result a sum of Rs.2,68,600.15 is due towards the rental and other dues from the Petitioner to the NLC. Taking advantage of interim injunction Petitioner continued to occupy the quarters unauthorized with all amenities of water, electricity etc. But Petitioner and her husband has never cared to remit allied charges for the said quarters from 1993. As a result a sum of Rs.2,68,600.15 is due towards the rental and other dues from the Petitioner to the NLC. As per rules, NLC is entitled to withhold the amount towards the rental arrears payable by the Petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.V.C.Janarthanan, has contended that the Petitioner is not connected with allotment of quarters and NLC ought to have proceeded against the Petitioners husband. The learned counsel further argued that the action of the Management is in violation of principles of natural justice and having issued certificate that no charges are due pending from the Petitioner, NLC cannot seek to deduct the amount from retiral benefits payable to the Petitioner. It was further urged that when no quarters was allotted to the Petitioner NLC was not justified in seeking to recover the arrears from the Petitioner. 6. Drawing the attention of the Court to the filing of the suit and the amount due and payable by the Petitioner, Mr.N.A.K.Sharma, learned counsel for NLC submitted that after retirement of Petitioners husband, the couple refused to vacate the quarters and taking advantage of the interim injunction granted by civil court, they continued to be in unauthorised occupation of quarters. Learned counsel further submitted that both husband and wife has filed civil suit in O.S.No.314/94 Sub Court, Cuddalore (O.S.No.181/96, District Magistrate Court, Neyveli) question of separate identity does not arise. The learned counsel would also submit that gratuity and other terminal benefits were already been paid to the Petitioner and only HRA and certain other amount are withheld and even after setting off, the balance amount of Rs.1,13,195.45/-is due from the Petitioner. 7. Petitioners husband Alphonse was allotted quarter No.E-10, Anna Road, Block-24, Neyveli. Petitioner husband retired from service on 312. 1992. As per rules governing allotment of quarters, Petitioners husband having retired from the service with effect from 312. 1992, was entitled to retain the quarters only till 30.04.1993, but he did not hand over the vacant possession and therefore proceedings were initiated against him under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (P.P. Act 1971). 1992. As per rules governing allotment of quarters, Petitioners husband having retired from the service with effect from 312. 1992, was entitled to retain the quarters only till 30.04.1993, but he did not hand over the vacant possession and therefore proceedings were initiated against him under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (P.P. Act 1971). In the meantime, a suit in O.S.No.314/1994, was filed by Alphonse and the Petitioner, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with their possession of the quarter No.E-10, Anna Road, Block-24, Neyveli being the quarter allotted to the Petitioners husband which he was entitled to retain only till 30.04.1993. By virtue of an interim order in I.A.No.699/1994 in the suit, the Petitioner and her husband remained in occupation of the said quarter. After full trial, the suit was dismissed on 30.09.2002, and no appeal has been filed. 8. After retirement of her husband in March 1993, the Petitioner made request for reallotment of the said quarter in her name as per her scale of pay and other conditions, petitioner was not entitled to Type-E quarter, she was allotted a "C" Type quarter, as per her entitlement. Petitioner did not accept the allotment of C Type quarter. But the Petitioner remained in unauthorized occupation of Type-E quarter. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents only by virtue of interim order in O.S.No.314/1994(Subsequently transferred to DMC, Neyveli and renumbered as O.S.No.181/1996) she continued to remain in occupation of Type-E quarter till 28.08.2002. When the quarters was vacated by the Petitioner. Thus from 01.05.1993 till 28.08.2002 the Petitioner and her husband having remained in occupation of No.E-10 and are liable to pay penalty and market rate of rent as per rules of NLC. 9. In the counter affidavit, it is averred that market rate of rent payable for the period from 01.05.1993 to 28.02.2002 works out to Rs.2,68,600.15/-. Admittedly 0no amount has been paid by the Petitioner and her husband. Notice under Section 7 in terms of the P.P.Act,1971 has been issued to the Petitioner and her husband calling upon them to show cause why a sum of Rs.2,68,000.15/- shall not be recovered from them. 10. Admittedly 0no amount has been paid by the Petitioner and her husband. Notice under Section 7 in terms of the P.P.Act,1971 has been issued to the Petitioner and her husband calling upon them to show cause why a sum of Rs.2,68,000.15/- shall not be recovered from them. 10. The learned counsel for Petitioner vehemently contended that quarters Type-E quarter No.10 was allotted in the name of the Petitioners husband and when the quarters has not been allotted in the name of Petitioner no amount could be recovered from the Petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that in law husband and wife are different entities and the Management has no right to withhold HRA and other benefits received from the Government payable to the Petitioner. 11. It is fallacious to contend that the Petitioner has nothing to do with Type-E, quarter No.10. When the Petitioners husband Alphonse was sought to be evicted, both husband and wife together filed O.S.No.314/1994, on the file of Sub Court Cuddalore, and obtained interim injunction against the Management. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5, the Petitioner and her husband continued to be in occupation only on the strength of interim order obtained from the civil court. After obtaining the interim order the Petitioner and her husband never paid any rent and other allied charges for their occupation of Type-E quarter No.10. The suit was lingering on file and after full trial the suit came to be dismissed on 30.09.2002. In the mean while Petitioner and her husband vacated the quarters on 28.02.2002. 12. The Petitioners husband was entitled to retain the quarters only till 30.04.1993. From 01.05.1993 the Petitioner and her husband were in unauthorized occupation of Type-E quarter No.10. Along with the counter the Respondents 4 and 5 have filed annexure indicating the rental and other charges payable i.e., Rs.2,68,600.15/-and amount due to the NLC from the Petitioner. Even after adjusting the amount the amount, an amount of Rs.1,13,195.45/-is yet to be paid to NLC by the Petitioner. While so the Petitioner is not right in contending that NLC has unjustly withheld the amount. 13. The Petitioner is not right in contending that gratuity and other retrial benefits are not paid to her. Even after adjusting the amount the amount, an amount of Rs.1,13,195.45/-is yet to be paid to NLC by the Petitioner. While so the Petitioner is not right in contending that NLC has unjustly withheld the amount. 13. The Petitioner is not right in contending that gratuity and other retrial benefits are not paid to her. As seen from the averments made in the counter affidavit the HRA payable to the Petitioner received from District Educational Department and bonus amount and E.L and H.P.L amount and NLC Wage Revision arrear have been withheld by NLC. The Petitioner and her husband who had been in unauthorized occupation of Type-E quarter 10 is not entitled to invoke discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 seeking writ of mandamus. 14. In the result, writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.