JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh affirming the judgment passed by the learned Munsif, Bargarh decreeing the suit of opposite party No. 1 (Plaintiff in part for a sum of Rs. 901.43 paise with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per annum per annum against the petitioner and opposite parties 2 to 4, (defendants). XX XX XX After discussing the facts, his Lordship observed. 2. The facts not disputed and proved are as follows : The plaintiff was the occupant of the government quarters at Bolangir on payment of standard rent of Rs. 46.60 per month. On transfer to the Panchayat College, Bargarh, he was relieved on 2-8-1975. In view of the difficulties his daughter faced regarding her study, he retained the government quarters till 10-5-1976. He Was not permitted by defendant No. 2 to continue in occupation of the government quarters for the entire period on payment of standard rent. For two months after his relief on 2-8-1975 he was charged standard rent and thereafter, till he vacated the government quarters on 10-5-1976 he was charged market rent at the rate of Rs. 175.76 paise per month and a sum of Rs. 1377.25 paise was deducted from his pay bills by the Sub-Treasury Officer of Bargarh. 3. The only substantial question that falls for determination is whether opposite parties 3 and 4 were competent according to rules to realise market rent from the plaintiff in respect of the Government quarters occupied by Him after his relief from 2-8-1975 upto the date of vacation, namely, 10-5-1976, excluding the first two months. In this connection, the relevant Rules are 107-A and III of the Service Code. According to Sub-rule 4(b)(ii) of Rule 107-A the plaintiff was entitled to remain in occupation of the government quarters for a period of two months from the date of making over charge, namely, 2-8-1975 because, indisputebly he was not provided with a government quarters at Bargarh. Therefore, he was liable to pay the standard rent of Rs. 46.60 for two months beginning from 3-8-1975 upto 3-10-1975. 4. Therefore, he was liable to pay the standard rent of Rs. 46.60 for two months beginning from 3-8-1975 upto 3-10-1975. 4. Rule 111 (d)(ii)(1) of the Service Code is quoted below for easy reference : " (d) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) above, the State Government may; X X X (ii) by general or special order, provide for taking a licence fee in excess of that prescribed in Clause (b) above from an officer; (1) who is not required or permitted to reside on duty at the station at which the residence is supplied to him; or" 5. On plain interpretation it appears that an officer who is in unauthorised occupation of government quarters is liable to be charged excess licence fee which is otherwise known as market rent. In accordance with the aforesaid rule, the State Government had the authority to charge excess licence fee or market rent for payment by the plaintiff in respect of his unauthorised occupation of the government quarters at Bolangir. But neither defendant No. 1, the State of Orissa which remained ex parte, nor the other defendants proved any document to show that the State Government exercised its authority by charging excess licence fee or market rent from the plaintiff. On the other hand, it appears that at the instance of defendant No. 3, the principal of Rajendra College, defendant No. 4, the 'Executive Engineer', R. and B. charged excess licence fee or market rent from the plaintiff. In this connection it is useful to refer to the off ice memorandum dated 28.4.1960 (Ext. 10) issued by the Finance Department inserting item No. III-A with reference to Rule III (d)(ii) in Appendix No. I of the Orissa Service Code, Volume I. Appendix I delineates the list of powers which may be exercised by departments of government, heads of departments and : subordinate authorities without consulting the Finance Department. Item Nos. 10 and 11-A of Appendix I are quoted for easy reference: Item No. No. of Nature of power Authority to which Extent of rule delegation is made power delegated 10 105 Power to allot Administrative Full power, They residential Departments/Heads may redelgate building. of Departments/ the powers in Heads of Offices. favour of subordinate authorities subject to such conditions as they may consider fit. X X X X 11-A (i) Power to charge Authority to Full powers. of Departments/ the powers in Heads of Offices. favour of subordinate authorities subject to such conditions as they may consider fit. X X X X 11-A (i) Power to charge Authority to Full powers. (a) licence fee in whom powers (ii) excess of the have been licence fee delegated prescribed under under Rule Clause(b) of 105. Rule III. 6. It will appear that according to item No. 10, the Heads of Offices have full powers to allot residential building to officers. According to item 11-A they have also full powers to charge excess licence fee or market rent. But by virtue of the office memorandum dated 28-4-1980 (Ext. 10)", the above delegation of powers as per item No. 11-A was made with effect from the aforesaid date. In other words, prior to 28-4-1980 the Heads of Offices, such as, defendant No. 3, Principal of Rajendra College had no delegated authority to charge excess licence fee or market rent. Before such delegation of powers, the authority to charge excess licence fee or market rent naturally lay with the State Government in accordance with Rule III(d)(ii) of the Service Code. Ext. 10 had no retrospective operation as appears from it So its operation is prospective with effect from 28-4-1980. This being the position, defendant No. 3 had no delegated authority to charge excess licence fee or market rent from the plaintiff on assessment by defendant No. 4 for unauthorised occupation of the government quarters at Bolangir. In my view, the learned Courts below had taken a correct view by interpretation of the relevant rules of the Orissa Service Code, as well as, item No. 11-A of Appendix I. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be assailed subject to the modification that the plaintiff shall realise the decretal dues from defendant No. 1, the State of Orissa, because, the excess licence fee or market rent was realised by defendant No. 1 and not by defendants 2, 3 and 4. 7. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed, subject to the modification that the plaintiff shall realise the decretal dues only from defendant No. 1. Final Result : Dismissed