ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 Chairman-cum-Managing Director, H.E.C. Ranchi whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was employee of the respondent corporation having quarter No.E-195/II in Sector-II allotted by the respondent corporation. The petitioner retired in February. 1997. The petitioner had in view of a grievance that the respondent had charged higher rate of electric charges of the quarter occupied by him after his date of retirement earlier moved the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No.332 of 1999(R). It is submitted that by order dated 09.09.1999 in the said case. It was observed that the respondent–corporation is not entitled to vacate the quarter of the superannuated employee till the retiral benefit is paid. Thereafter, the proceeding under Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were undertaken against the petitioner and the learned Estate Officer passed an order against the petitioner to vacate the premises within fifteen days. Writ petition against the said order was again filed by the petitioner being W.P. (S) No.4120 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 04th December, 2001 directing the corporation to pay the retiral dues to the employee while giving liberty to the petitioner and others to prefer appeal. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2004 in Misc. Appeal No.42 of 2001. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition preferred against the said order of the petitioner was also dismissed. 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has not yet been paid the gratuity amount as well as the Earned Leave Encashment amount in the revised scale. 5. The petitioner again preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No.2884 of 2004 against forcibly breaking open of the door of the quarter under his occupation without payment of retiral benefits and other dues. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court in W.P. (S) No.4565 of 2006 claiming that the other similarly situated ex–employees were given the benefit of Long Term Lease (LTL). The petitioner applied for the same benefit provided to others but the same was not being given to him. 6. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court in W.P. (S) No.4565 of 2006 claiming that the other similarly situated ex–employees were given the benefit of Long Term Lease (LTL). The petitioner applied for the same benefit provided to others but the same was not being given to him. 6. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 06.09.2006 directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period stipulated therein. The impugned order dated 08.11.2006 has been passed subsequent thereto on the representation of the petitioner noticing the relevant material facts and finally rejecting the request of the petitioner. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that some of the post retiral dues of the petitioner are still being withheld. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has been given liberty to approach the respondent authority for payment of the retiral dues and it has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that even by the reading of the impugned order the petitioner has been offered his retiral dues by the corporation after giving notice for vacating the quarter. 9. Heard the parties and upon going through the records and the impugned order, it appears that the material facts have also been considered in the impugned order. It further appears that proceeding for eviction of the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 were undertaken and after issue of notice to him the order dated 02.11.2001 was passed by the Estate Officer directing to evict the quarter. The petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No.42 of 2001 before the Civil Court. Ranchi which was also dismissed on 15.03.2004 after detailed hearing of the case and thereafter the petitioner was again noticed for vacating the quarter on 04.05.2004 without further delay. Thereafter, the respondent authority had vacated the quarter with the help of the Enforcement Agency and by the local Police finally on 05.06.2004. 10. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, H.E.C. Ranchi of the respondent corporation has after noticing of the aforesaid fact observed that the petitioner was offered his retiral dues and after eviction of the petitioner from the quarter it has been allotted to the other employee being quarter No.E-195/II. 10. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, H.E.C. Ranchi of the respondent corporation has after noticing of the aforesaid fact observed that the petitioner was offered his retiral dues and after eviction of the petitioner from the quarter it has been allotted to the other employee being quarter No.E-195/II. It has also been stated that this Court in the last writ petition W.P.S. No. 4565 of 2006 vide order dated 06.09.2006 directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The respondent CMD, H.E.C. Ranchi has also recorded in the impugned order that presently there is no such scheme to allot the quarter to the ex–employee, however, if any such scheme is introduced in future the petitioner has been given liberty to apply for. 11. From perusal of the contents of the order and after hearing learned counsel for the parties. I find that there is no sustainable ground as made out on the part of the impugned order which requires interference of the writ Court in exercise of the power of judicial review. 12. The order does not suffer from any perversity. However, as observed from the impugned order itself, if the petitioner has retired and the retirement dues are still lying before the respondent authority the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent authority for payment of the same. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.