Anil Dev Singh, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THE instant petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated 7th September, 1998 in C. W. P. No. 433 of 1998. The relief which was given to the petitioner in that case, therefore, must also be available to the petitioner in the instant petition. The facts giving rise to the inslant petition are as under: ( 2 ) THE petitioner who was serving at New Delhi was transferred and posted at Srinagar on 2nd January, 1995. He accordingly reported for his duties at Srinagar. On 15th February, 1995, the petitioner applied for separated family accommodation for his family which he had left behind in Delhi. On 24th August, 1995, the petitioner was intimated that he had been allotted hired accommodation at Munirka. It appears that the petitioner did not accept the accommodation which was provided to him. Thereafter the respondent informed the petitioner that he had been allotted hired accommodation at Vasant Kunj. This was also not accepted by the petitioner. In March, 1996 he was informed that he separated family accommodation has been allotted in his favour. On receiving the information the petitioner shifted his family to the separated family accommodation on 28th March, 1996. ( 3 ) SINCE at the earlier point of time the petitioner did not shift from the defence pool accommodation to the hired accommodations which were allotted to him, the respondents asked the petitioner to pay damage rent to the tune of Rs. 35,852. 00 A partial recovery towards the payment of the above said amount was made by the respondent from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved of this action of the respondent. ( 4 ) THE levy of damage rent, in my opinion, was not authorised by law inasmuch as the communication of the Government of India dated 7th February, 1991 to the Chief of the Army Staff containing concessions to the officers posted in Srinagar was applicable to the petitioner. According to the order contained in the said letter an officer could retain the defence pool accommodation till such time he was posted in Srinagar. It is not disputed that the petitioner remained posted in Srinagar till the year 1997. Thus the petitioner was entitled to retain the defence pool accommodation in Delhi for his family till his return from Srinagar to any other place of posting. It is not disputed that the petitioner remained posted in Srinagar till the year 1997. Thus the petitioner was entitled to retain the defence pool accommodation in Delhi for his family till his return from Srinagar to any other place of posting. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and must be struck down. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed. The amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner on account of damage rent shall be returned to him within a period of eight weeks from today.