Order This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 2.12.2010, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in Misc. Appeal No. 20/ 2010, dismissing the appeal; the order dated 7.4.2008, passed by the Estate Officer, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro in Case No. AID 135/2007, directing the petitioner to vacate the quarter no. II A-2/181, within 15 days from the date of the order and also for quashing the order dated 20.12.2006, passed by the Managing Di. rector, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for leasing out of the Quarter No. II A-2/181 in terms of the leasing Scheme 2002. It may be noted here that the petitioner did not annex the copy of the order dated 20.12.2006. However, Mr. A Sen, learned counsel for the respondents produced it and the parties advanced their arguments on it, and it is kept on the record. 2. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for long term lease pursuant to the Scheme of the respondents, which has been wrongly rejected; and that the said order dated 20.12.2006 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering his case; and that the said order dated 9.4.2008 was passed without serving notice on the petitioner and that he is not in possession of the said• quarter unauthorizedly and, therefore. his appeal could not be rejected. He further submitted that the petitioner was not paid his entire dues and, therefore, he was justified in not vacating the quarter. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sen supported the impugned orders. 4. The petitioner filed writ petition being WPC No. 5703 of 2006 for a direction to the respondents to take final decision on his application for allotment of the quarter in question on term lease as per the Scheme of the respondents. The Managing Director, Sokaro Steel Plant, was directed to look into the petitioner's grievance and take a decision in accordance with law within the given time. It was further ordered that if the petitioner has already deposited the application amount for taking lease of the said quarter in question, no coercive action shall be taken against him till the final order is passed by the said authority. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the said authority. 5. It was further ordered that if the petitioner has already deposited the application amount for taking lease of the said quarter in question, no coercive action shall be taken against him till the final order is passed by the said authority. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the said authority. 5. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.12.2006 that the petitioner' submitted his application on 13.11.2002 for leasing out the quarter with earnest money of Rs. 10,000/-, but in the inquiry held on 27.11.2002, it was found that unauthorized construction was made by the petitioner in the said quarter. He was asked by letter dated 28.1.2003 to remove the said structure within 15 days, which he failed to remove and, therefore, he was not found eligible for allotment of the said quarter. In the mean time, the Scheme of 2002 was also closed w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Regarding refund of money, it appears that the petitioner was informed twice in January and March, 2004 but the same could not be returned in absence of his bank details. ''6. Thus, the petitioner's application for allotment of the quarter was rejected on taking into consideration relevant as- aspects of the matter: Moreover petitioner is challenging it after about six years, when he lost in appeal. Even after rejection of the said application, the petitioner did not vacate the quarter. Therefore, the said eviction case under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was filed by the respondent company before the Estate Officer: In spite of service of notice the petitioner did not chose to appear. However, the petitioner filed the said appeal before the learned District Judge. raising all the points available to him. The learned District Judge, after considering the respective cases of the parties and the materials brought on the record by them, dismissed the appeal. 7. The petitioner superannuated on 28.2.2005 and he was allowed to retain the said quarter up to 31.8.2006. The amount of gratuity was withheld as per the rules of the company as he did not vacate the• quarter. It is settled position that an employee cannot withhold quarter on the ground of non-payment of retiral dues. Mr. Sen, rightly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of "Sudarshan Anand vs. Bokaro Steel Plant and Others, reported in AIR 2004 Jharkhand 84 [ : 2005(1) JLJR 6 ]. 8. It is settled position that an employee cannot withhold quarter on the ground of non-payment of retiral dues. Mr. Sen, rightly relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of "Sudarshan Anand vs. Bokaro Steel Plant and Others, reported in AIR 2004 Jharkhand 84 [ : 2005(1) JLJR 6 ]. 8. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, .no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned orders. The petitioner is directed to vacate the quarter in question within four weeks from today and furnish his bank details. The respondents will adjust all the dues of the quarter against the gratuity amount and also Rs. 15538/- paid against allotment of the quarter and will pay the balance amount, if any, in the bank account of the petitioner. The respondents will be entitled to recover, if any amount is found due from the petitioner after adjustment. in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. However no costs.