ORDER : 1. The order passed by the 3rd respondent, the Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur, in proceedings dated 15.10.2015 stating that the writ petitioner had retired from Government Service on 28.02.2015 and therefore, he is liable to pay arrears of rent and maintenance charges and hand over the possession of the house in his occupation, failing which, penal rent will be imposed as per Rules in force is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner has retired from Government Service from the Revenue Department and he had been entered as a tenant-cum-allottee in respect of Middle Income Group house bearing Door No. M.I.69, situated at 9th Street, Maraimalai Nagar, Kadampadi, Nagappattinam. The petitioner claims that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the above said house ever since from 12.08.1992 and he paid Rs. 1,000/- as an advance amount by way of Demand Draft at the time of submission of his application seeking allotment of the said house. 3. Maraimalai Nagar Project at Nagappattinam is having 180 houses out of which 95 houses are allotted on tenant-cum-owner basis. Though the 3rd respondent promised that he would register the sale deed after completing the formalities in respect of the petitioner premises, the same has not been done on account of certain facts. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that due to Tsunami, the house under occupation of the petitioner had damages and spent huge amount for repairing house. It is contended that in some places, the Government granted allotment in their favour and sale deeds were also executed in their favour. It is pertinent to note that neighbour of the petitioner also got a sale deed in his favour. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for allotment. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent states that in the entire project, 61 houses were sold out in favour of individual applicants/ Government Servants, who paid their respective sale considerations and accordingly, the sale deeds were executed by the competent authority in favour of such individuals. In respect of other 79 houses, the Government itself purchased the houses by paying the entire sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and registered the houses in the name of the Government. In respect of other 79 houses, the Government itself purchased the houses by paying the entire sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and registered the houses in the name of the Government. Thus, the Government became the absolute owner of the property in respect of 79 houses. Those 79 houses were purchased by the Government and allotted to Government Servants on rental basis and by following the terms and conditions of lease. Accordingly, the writ petitioner was allotted with the Government rental quarters for his accommodation. In case of any transfer, the Government Servant is liable to vacate rental accommodation granted in his favour. Thus, the very continuation of the writ petitioner, after his retirement on 28.02.2015 itself is illegal. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board also confirms that out of the entire project, 61 houses were sold out to the individuals/ Government Servants and in respect of those 61 allottees, the sale deeds were executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and they became the owners of the respective houses. However, in respect of balance 79 houses, the Government purchased the said 79 houses by paying the entire sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 79 houses purchased by the Government were rented out to the Government employees, who are serving in that locality and those occupiers are paying monthly rent from their salary to the Government. Thus, the writ petitioner is not the owner of the property, as he had not been given any allotment for outright purchase. The writ petitioner has not submitted any documents to show that the allotment for hire purchase sale was granted in his favour. The only claim is that the writ petitioner has submitted an application for hire purchase and the same has not been considered at all. When the Government had purchased the entire 79 houses, there is no question of granting allotment in favour of the writ petitioner as the same were given for rent to the Government employees. 7. Further, the writ petitioner was allowed to continue on rental basis and after retirement, he is liable to vacate the premises and hand over the key to the Executive Engineer, who is in-charge of project. 7. Further, the writ petitioner was allowed to continue on rental basis and after retirement, he is liable to vacate the premises and hand over the key to the Executive Engineer, who is in-charge of project. Contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease, the writ petitioner is continuing in the premises and not paying the market rent as applicable from time to time for his continuance in the house, after the date of his retirement. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner continued in the Government Premises while he was in service. The allotment order was given by the competent authority in proceedings dated 25.11.1994, and the terms and conditions of the allotment order are enumerated hereunder:- xxx xxx xxx 9. On a perusal of the allotment order granted in favour of the writ petitioner, it is clear that the allotment was granted on rental basis and the writ petitioner is liable to pay monthly rent to the respondent. There is no agreement for sale or hire purchase available on record. 10. Mr. G. Gunasekaran, Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur, is present before this Court and clarified that in respect of the entire project at Nagapattinam, 61 houses were sold on hire purchase basis and remaining 79 houses were purchased by the Government by paying sale consideration. Thus, all the 79 houses including the house alloted in favour of the writ petitioner stand in the name of the Government. The Government, is the owner of the property and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled to claim any rights over the said property. The writ petitioner was alloted the house for his stay till the date of retirement. However, the writ petitioner, has filed the present writ petition for continuing in possession beyond his superannuation on 28.02.2015. Thus, occupation of the writ petitioner in the Government quarters is contrary to rules in force. 11. The public servant on allotment of rental quarters is aware that in case any transfer or in the event of retirement, he has to vacate the Government rental quarters and hand over the same to the authorities concerned. Thus, occupation of the writ petitioner in the Government quarters is contrary to rules in force. 11. The public servant on allotment of rental quarters is aware that in case any transfer or in the event of retirement, he has to vacate the Government rental quarters and hand over the same to the authorities concerned. On a perusal of the documents now produced by the writ petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petitioner is very much aware of the fact that no allotment was granted in his favour under hire purchase scheme. He was alloted the house only for rental accommodation. This apart, the writ petitioner was paying monthly rent to the authorities concerned from the year 1994. When the public servant is aware of the fact that he was continuously paying monthly rent for the Government quarters and after retirement, he is continuing in the Government quarters without any authority, such an attitude of the Government servant is to be deprecated. The public servant is bound to follow the rules in force in respect of the Government accommodation. In the event of any violation, the authorities are bound to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. 12. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is not having any sale deed or allotment order under the hire purchase scheme. Thus, the writ petitioner has not established any rights in respect of the Government quarters granted in his favour when he was in service. 13. Even Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, stipulates that pension itself is to be granted subject to future good conduct of Government servant. Thus, even after retirement, Government servant is bound to maintain good conduct. The pension sanctioning authority may by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the petitioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. Further good conduct shall be the implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. 14. In the present case on hand, the writ petitioner was the Government servant. He was alloted with the rental quarters in proceedings dated 25.11.1994. The terms and conditions of the allotment of the Government rental quarters have been enumerated in the order itself in clear terms. 14. In the present case on hand, the writ petitioner was the Government servant. He was alloted with the rental quarters in proceedings dated 25.11.1994. The terms and conditions of the allotment of the Government rental quarters have been enumerated in the order itself in clear terms. The petitioner was also aware of the fact that he was continuing the Government accommodation as a tenant and he was continuously paying the monthly rent as if he is continuing as a Government servant even after his retirement. Thus, the actions of the petitioner in this regard are certainly wilful and wanton and knowing fully well that there is no allotment in his favour under hire purchase scheme and he has been granted with rental accommodation in the Government quarters. He has made an attempt to abuse the process of law and he is continuing in the Government accommodation even after a lapse of three years from the date of his retirement i.e. on 28.02.2015. Thus, the very conduct of the public servant is to be deprecated and is certainly objectionable, being in violation of the Rules in force. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions are issued:- (i) The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is rejected. (ii) The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in letter No. R7/409/2015, dated 15.10.2015 is confirmed. (iii) The 3rd respondent - Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Thanjavur, is directed to evict the writ petitioner within a period of five (5) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by following the procedures contemplated under the Rules. The 3rd respondent- Executive Engineer-cum- Administrative Officer, is also directed to initiate all further action and to recover the market rent as applicable under the Rules in force in respect of the over-stay in the Government accommodation by the writ petitioner. 16. With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.