ORDER : 1. In this application, the original writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter no. 5158 dated 3/5.7.2004, issued by respondent no. 5, whereby and whereuner, the Management has refused to consider granting long term lease of Quarter No. 2355/Sector 6-D, Bokaro Steel City and the original writ petitioner was further directed to vacate the quarter. It has further been prayed for restraining the respondents to realize penal rent from June, 2001 as also a direction upon the respondents for making payment of retrial dues to the substituted heirs of the original writ petitioner. 2. The original writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was initially appointed as Work Assistant in the year 1967 and regularized on 26.04.1969 and finally superannuated from service on 30.11.1997. The respondent no. 1 had come up with an allotment scheme for leasing of houses to its employees known as SAIL Scheme, pursuant to which the employee had applied for quarter no. 34/III-B and deposited the security amount of Rs.16,000/-. The total revised premium was fixed at Rs.2,70,000/- and the employee was directed to pay the balance amount and complete other formalities. Since the employee was informed on 15.12.2001 that the quarter which he had applied for was purchased by the allotted person himself, the employee was advised to make an application for allotment of the quarter, which was in his possession i.e. Quarter No. 6/D/2355. The employee accordingly applied for allotment of the said quarter along with bank draft amounting to Rs.16,000/- and the employee was directed to make the payment of premium of Rs.2,35,000/-. In response to the letter of the employee, wherein a request was made for final settlement of retrial dues after adjusting Rs.2,03,000/- towards long term lease, the employee was informed that even after the adjustment of all the dues, there was still a shortfall of Rs.1,95,664.00/- which the employee was advised to deposit. Letter dated 3/5.7.2004 was issued to the employee, wherein it was intimated that the employee had neither deposited the balance amount nor the entire adjustment of the dues could be made from the retrial dues of the employee and in such circumstance, it was intimated that the quarter could not be considered for being granted on long term lease to the employee and he was accordingly also advised to vacate the quarter. 3. Heard Mr. 3. Heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Since the original writ petitioner namely Surendra Kumar Singh had died on 24.07.2013, vide order dated 3.1.2014, the legal heirs of the original writ petitioner was substituted. 5. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that despite having not paid the retiral dues to the employee, it had been intimated that the adjustment towards the long term lease of the quarter could not be made as there was not enough amount arising out of the final settlement of retiral dues of the employee. It has further been submitted that a substantial amount has been charged towards penal rent and the employee has been discriminated against inasmuch as in spite of the fact that the penal rent of several other employees, who were allotted their own quarter had been waived but the same has not been done in the case of the employee concerned. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further adds that since the quarter, in which the employee was residing prior to his superannuation was allotted to him on long term lease, there was no question of making payment of penal rent. It is not a case, in which an employee after retirement continues to reside in the company's quarter. The employee having been allotted the said quarter on long term lease and since the employee had prayed for adjustment of retiral dues against the outstanding dues towards the quarter in question, in such circumstance, there was no occasion on the part of the respondents to charge penal rent after completion of two months from the date of superannuation of the employee. It has further been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act was totally uncalled for as it was not a case that the employee had not applied or had not been allotted the quarter, in which he was residing on long term lease. In such circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the entire matter has not been considered by the respondents in its proper perspective, it would be necessary that the matter be considered by the authority afresh. 6. Mr. In such circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since the entire matter has not been considered by the respondents in its proper perspective, it would be necessary that the matter be considered by the authority afresh. 6. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the employee had superannuated on 30.11.1997 and in terms of rules of the Company, he could have retained his quarter for a maximum period of two months from the date of his superannuation. It has been submitted that immediately on expiry of two months from the date of superannuation, the status of the employee became that of an unauthorised occupant and in such circumstances, the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act was rightly started. It has further been submitted that although show cause notice was issued to the employee but he chose not to appear and ultimately the case was decided ex-parte and the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction against the employee. It has also been submitted that if the employee was indeed aggrieved by the order of eviction, he could have preferred an appeal under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act but since he failed to do so, the order of Estate Officer had attained finality. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that on account of his unauthorised occupation, house rent (penal) and electricity (penal) was also charged and recoveries were made from the post retiral dues of the employee. Learned counsel for the respondents further adds that even if the amount of gratuity is adjusted against the outstanding dues towards long term lease, the same would also not be enough to quash the entire outstanding dues accrued to the respondents towards the quarter in question. Learned counsel for the respondents also adds that an attempt has been made by the employee to mix up the issue of eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and non-allotment of the quarter on long term lease. It has also been submitted that no legal right has been created to enable the employee to approach the Court for its enforcement. It has also been submitted that no legal right has been created to enable the employee to approach the Court for its enforcement. Moreover, learned counsel further adds that in absence of any legal right having been created upon the employee, no writ of mandamus can lie as the same can be made enforceable only when a legal right has been created. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the case basically revolves around the long term lease agreement and in cases of such nature, which involves contractual obligation, the Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction. 7. Although it has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue on long term lease leading to issuance of the impugned letter is a separate issue and not concerned with the eviction proceeding against the employee but as would appear from the averments made by both the sides along with supporting documents that the issues are indeed related to each other. The employee had superannuated on 30.11.1997 and had continued to reside in the said quarter even after completion of stipulated two months. From the application form, which is with respect to allotment of quarter on long term lease of 33 years, it appears that the same was made on 10.07.2002 by depositing an amount of Rs. 16,000/- as earnest money. It is not the case of the petitioner that prior to superannuation of the employee, the application for allotment of the same quarter was made. The order of the Estate Officer passed under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act was passed on 10.09.1999 and if the respondents have calculated penal rent and penal electricity dues, no fault can be found with the same inasmuch as the status of the employee was indeed that of an unauthorized occupant. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 332 of 1999. However, perusal of the said order reveals that the circular, which was issued by the HEC Ltd. and which was under challenge, did not apply to the superannuated employees, who have been paid their full retiral dues and for retaining the quarter without any leave and licence. However, perusal of the said order reveals that the circular, which was issued by the HEC Ltd. and which was under challenge, did not apply to the superannuated employees, who have been paid their full retiral dues and for retaining the quarter without any leave and licence. Moreover, the finding that the superannuated employees of the Corporation, who had not been paid their retiral dues are not liable to penal or revised rate of rent, was on the basis of the contents of the circular under challenge as also on the basis of the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-HEC. The facts of the case, which have been referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, are quite different and are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 8. In the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd and Another, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 , it was held as follows:- "21. It is evident from the above that generally the Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae). The grant or refusal of the writ is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter-alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal. 9. The employee on completion of two months from the date of his superannuation had extinguished his legal right to continue to occupy the quarter and, therefore, the penal rent imposed upon the employee was justifiable and in terms of the rules and schemes of the Company. 9. The employee on completion of two months from the date of his superannuation had extinguished his legal right to continue to occupy the quarter and, therefore, the penal rent imposed upon the employee was justifiable and in terms of the rules and schemes of the Company. Moreover, the employee had applied for long term lease of the same quarter after expiry of a long period of time and the allotment of the said quarter could not be considered since the adjustment of the retiral dues of the employee could not meet the entire outstanding amount payable to the respondents. Since the employee has failed to establish a legal right, which can be enforced by the writ court, there is no occasion for this Court to grant relief to the petitioner so far as the challenge, which has been made to the letter no. 5158 dated 3/5.7.2004 is concerned. However, since the employee had retired on 30.11.1997 and is now no more and since there appears to be some dues, which is still payable by the respondents, it would be in the interest of justice that the respondents come out with a clear stand on the said issue. 10. Accordingly, so far as the retiral dues of the employee is concerned, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 3, who shall authorize a responsible officer to consider the retiral dues payable to the employee by passing a reasoned and speaking order and if the claim is found to be genuine, the admissible dues shall be released to the substituted heirs of the employee (petitioners at present). The entire exercise with respect to the retiral dues, as indicated above, shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, which however shall be undertaken subject to vacation of the quarter in question, if not already vacated. 11. In the result, this writ application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. 12. All pending I.As. also stand disposed of. Application disposed of.