The main legal point established is that the revision of the ceiling limit for occupation of government quarters should be in line with the revision of pay scales, and penal rent cannot be recovered without offering alternate accommodation.

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 25.08.2009, and to direct the first respondent to pay the withheld amount of 60% of pay revision arrears to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was an Associate Lecturer in the Central Polytechnic, Chennai and he submitted a representation during 1987 for allotment of residential quarters. The request was favourably considered and the petitioner was allotted a quarter bearing No.D-8, Tod Hunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, by G.O.Ms.No.1125, dated 03.06.1987. The petitioner continued in occupation of the quarter till 29.05.2001 and thereafter vacated and handed over vacant possession after he retired from service on superannuation. While the petitioner was in occupation of the quarters, the first respondent by communication dated 26.02.1997, called upon the petitioner to vacate the residential quarters on the ground that the petitioner's basic pay had exceeded Rs.4,000/-, as on 26.02.1997 his basic pay was Rs.4125/-, the first respondent referred to G.O.Ms.No.995, Public Works Department, dated 09.05.1990 to be the basis for the order dated 26.02.1997. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.429, dated 18.08.1999, by which the Government revised the eligibility pay range, consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 6th Pay Commission, by virtue of which all category of employees were granted higher scale of pay. In terms of annexure 3 of the said Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.429, the revised scale of pay for occupation of PWD quarters at Tod Hunter Nagar, Chennai 600 015 was fixed at Rs.14,050/-.

3. It appears that an issue came up before this Court, somewhat identical to the case of the petitioner in the case of P.Mariyappan, who was working as a Senior Lecturer in English at the Central Polytechnic, Chennai and who approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13635 of 2004, praying for a direction upon the respondents to settle his gratuity amount. The Government resisted the writ petition by contending that the petitioner therein was due and liable to pay penal rent for the Government Residential quarters occupied by him, since he continued to occupy in the same Government quarter, even after his basic pay was revised and that his occupation was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990. The writ petition was allowed, as against which the Government preferred appeal in W.A.No.4188 of 2004. The Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 31.03.2005, dismissed the Writ Appeal holding that if the writ petitioner therein had crossed the pay a ceiling limit, then he ought to have been granted alternate accommodation.

4. The petitioner herein on coming to know of the said judgment submitted a representation to the first respondent, dated 07.12.2005 and requested for issuance of "no demand certificate" so that his pay commission arrears could be disbursed. The said representation was not considered and the first respondent by order dated 25.08.2009, stated that penal rent has to be recovered from the petitioner for the period from 01.10.1995 to 29.05.2001 and the same has to be recovered and remitted into the particular head of account. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. S.Sadasharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal and passed without any justification. It is submitted that in the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.1125, dated 03.06.1997, there is no such ceiling limit specified and the petitioner cannot be directed to pay penal rent merely because his basic pay was revised by the Government, subsequent to his allotment of the quarter. Further, it is submitted that the order dated 26.02.1997, calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises, was issued based on G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990. The said Gov