Order This writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ for a direction to the respondents to allot a quarter bearing no. B 1801/11 on long term lease by adjusting retiral dues of the deceased A.T. Pandey to be paid to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's brother A.T. Pandey joined Heavy Engineering Corporation in the year 1963 and served the Corporation till his retirement on superannuation on 30.6.2001. Subsequently, when the Corporation came forward with the scheme of settlement of quarters to its employees including retired employees on long term lease, the petitioner applied for it but before any order in this respect could be passed, petitioner's brother who was issueless died and even his wife had predeceased him. Thereupon, the petitioner being brother of the said AT Pandey applied for payment of retiral dues including gratuity, upon which petitioner was asked for to come with the succession certificate. Therefore, the petitioner applied before the competent court of law for grant of succession certificate which was granted to the petitioner on 4.5.2005 and thereafter petitioner approached to the authority for long term settlement of the quarters by making adjustment of the retiral dues but neither the quarter was settled for long terms lease nor retiral dues was paid to the petitioner, though he is having succession certificate' which act of the respondent is quite arbitrary and hence the authority be directed to settle the quarters after making adjustment of the retiral dues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Heavy Engineering Corporation submits that the petitioner, a younger brother 01 ex-employee late Ashutosh Pandey is in unauthorized occupation of the quarters bearing no. B-1801/1I, who in terms of the provision of the scheme cannot be allotted with quarters as the petitioner under the scheme being not dependent upon the deceased ex-employee, is not eligible though he is having succession certificate but that is related to the payment of dues. 4. It was submitted that the respondent is under obligation to make payment of admitted dues to the petitioner after adjustment of the dues what is due to Corporation and subject to vacation of Corporation's quarters which is under unauthorized occupation of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 5. 4. It was submitted that the respondent is under obligation to make payment of admitted dues to the petitioner after adjustment of the dues what is due to Corporation and subject to vacation of Corporation's quarters which is under unauthorized occupation of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties it does appear that deceased employee having been retired on superannuation died issueless and even his wife had predeceased him. The petitioner being brother of the deceased employee who is in occupation of the quarters allotted to the ex-employee put claim of settlement of quarters on long term lease under the scheme named as "Scheme for allotment of HEC quarters on long term lease" (in short 'LTL') on adjustment of the retiral dues of the deceased for which (retiral dues) he was granted succession certificate by the competent court of law but the petitioner does not seem to be eligible for settlement of quarters under the scheme as clause 3.1 of the scheme does stipulate about the settlement of that quarters on long term lease which is in occupation of serving employees, ex-employees, dependent of the deceased employees and dependent children of the deceased ex-employees of HEC but the petitioner being brother of the deceased cannot be said to be dependent of the deceased under the scheme and, therefore, he is not entitled to settlement of quarters which had been allotted to the deceased employee while he was in service, rather he is liable to vacate the quarters immediately. Therefore equity demands that before he puts claim on the retiral dues of the deceased, he must vacate quarters. If the petitioner fails to vacate the quarter, the respondent will be at liberty to take recourse for that by means which is permissible in law. It is made clear that if the petitioner vacates the quarter, the respondent would pay admitted dues of the deceased to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is dismissed.