JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - In this petition filed by Divisional Manager, Railways, the question is if the Labour Court committed any error of law in allowing claim of opposite party for payment of house allowance admissible to him daring the period he was posted at Kanpur and further direct the petitioner to refund penal house rent charged from opposite party for retaining quarter at Allahabad. Admittedly petitioner was employed as a driver and was posted at Allahabad where a railway quarter was allotted to him on Rs. 33.46. From 15 June 1966, and then from 26 December 1968 to March 1976, he was posted at Chunar and Kanpur respectively. During the entire period, he, however, retained his quarter at Allahabad. For this retention penal rent was charged from him and it was deducted from his salary every month without any objection. But since retention was against circular letter of the railways the petitioner charged enhanced rent for this period and opposite party does not appear to have raised any objection in respect of penal rent during the entire period he was in service. After retirement he filed application under S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act praying that amount deducted from his salary during this period may be refunded to him as it was illegal deduction. It was also claimed that during the period he was posted at Kanpur he was not given any house allowance. The Labour Court found that deduction of rent from salary was illegal as no notice had be n given to opposite party intimating him that petitioner intended to charge penal rent from him. In respect of latter claim the Labour Court held that since petitioner was posted at Kanpur from 1968 to 1976 he was entitled to house rent admissible to employees at Kanpur. 2. As regards finding in respect of house allowance during period petitioner was posted at Kanpur that does not appear to suffer from any error of law. In respect of latter claim the Labour Court held that since petitioner was posted at Kanpur from 1968 to 1976 he was entitled to house rent admissible to employees at Kanpur. 2. As regards finding in respect of house allowance during period petitioner was posted at Kanpur that does not appear to suffer from any error of law. On 23 March 1959, Railway Board had issued a circular which provided that: "in such case the railway servant concerned will be eligible for rent allowance in respect of new station if otherwise admissible without any regard to the fact whether he has been permitted to ream the Government quarter at old station on payment of normal rent or penal rent." The plea, therefore, of petitioner that since opposite party had not vacated the quarter at Allahabad, he was not entitled to house allowance was rightly repelled Moreover, the petitioner acted unjustifiably in changing penal rent on one hand and denying him house allowance at other. It was against fair-play and justice. 3. As regards penal rent the liability to pay the the same cannot be disputed. Due to dearth of accommodation and to avoid inconvenience to other employees the provision was made. In 1972 it was modified by Letter No. F (X) 1-72/R N. 3/1, dated 27 April 1972, as existing provision of twice of assessed rent did not prove sufficient deterrent. Cities were divided in A, B1, B2 and C and penal rent was fixed at six, five, four and three times of the assessed rent for each class, respectively. And in remaining cases it was to be twice the assessed rent, la 197) the Board issued another circular, quotel below, in respect of the period for which a quarter could be retained : "(F) Transfer to other station/railway. In case of temporary transfer from one station to another or from one railway to another staff may be allowed to retain their railway accommodation fora period of 4 month on payment of normal rent. In case of permanent transfer, General Manager may grant permission tor retention of quarter for two months on normal rent. In really hard cases General Manager may authorise retention for periods exceeding two months but not exceeding four months on peal rates provided this retention will not cause serious inconvenience to the staff posted at the station. In case of permanent transfer, General Manager may grant permission tor retention of quarter for two months on normal rent. In really hard cases General Manager may authorise retention for periods exceeding two months but not exceeding four months on peal rates provided this retention will not cause serious inconvenience to the staff posted at the station. The Board have to be approached for sanction in case where it is proposed to recover normal rent after the expiry of the first two months. The penal rent will mean 10 per cent of the emoluments or twice the assessed rent, which achieve is higher (R. B.'s No. E (G)/72 RN 266 of 2 July 1974, E.R. SI. No. 8387/S. E./268/74, D.S. may allow staff to retain quarters at the old station for two mouths if the transfer is within the division (R. B.'s No. F (X) 11-62 P. W. 14/6 of 17/ 19 September 1962 SI. No. E, R. 5046). It may be noted that Board's Letter No. E (P. and A I) 11-75/ H. R. A. 1 of 21 February 1975, refers to drawl of H. R. A. and not about retention of railway quarters)." 4. Since opposite party was a permanent employee he could retain the quarter for two months only. The petitioner was not required to give notice to opposite party that in case he did not vacate penal rent shall be charged from him. Rather the rule appears to require authorities to be strict in the matter as charging of normal rent, after two months is to be with permission of Board. In any case, if any notice was required the purpose of which in the circumstances could be intimation or warning to opposite party to make arrangement else penal rent shall be charged, it was given to him as from the very list month he was transferred to Chunar, penal rent was deducted from his salary. And no grievance was made by opposite party, so long he was in service. The Labour Court, therefore, committed error of law in allowing the claim of opposite party because no notice was given to him. But from the chart produced by learned counsel for opposite party it appears that he was charged enhanced rent for entire period he was posted at Chunar. The Labour Court, therefore, committed error of law in allowing the claim of opposite party because no notice was given to him. But from the chart produced by learned counsel for opposite party it appears that he was charged enhanced rent for entire period he was posted at Chunar. This could not have teen done, as it is not disputed that opposite party was not allotted any quarter at Chunar. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to charge enhanced rent for the entire period he was posted at Chunar. This could not have been done, as it is not disputed that opposite party was not allotted any quarter at Chunar. Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to charge enhanced rent for period of two months from the date opposite party was transferred from Allahabad to Chunar. From the chart it further appears that when petitioner was again posted at Allahabad the opposite parties continued charging penal rent from 4 December 1966 to 25 December 1968. This again does not appear to be in consonance with equity and justice. Petitioner was occupying the quarter when he was serving at Allahabad, therefore, there was no justification to charge penal rent. Even the circular or rule does not entitle charging of penal rent if the employee has again been posted. Penal rent is charged from a permanent employee if he does not vacate the quarter within two months and continues to retail it. But once he was re transferred he could not be deemed to retain the quarter after his transfer. Similarly rent could not have been charged from 26 December 1963 to 26 February 1969, when he was transferred from Allahabad to Kanpur. In respect of remaining amount the Labour Court obviously committed error of law. 5. It was also urged that penal rent could not have been charged at more than twice of the normal rent. As stated earlier this depended on class of city. As no factual foundation for this was 1 aid either before the Labour Court it cannot be permitted to be raised 6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed is part. Order of the Labour Court in respect of refund is modified to the extent indicated above. Parties shall, in view of divided success, bear their own costs.