Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, an Audit Officer in the Department of Posts and Telegraph, has filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of an order dated 9. 9. 1997, passed by the Central Administrative ( 2 ) TRIBUNAL, dismissing the O. A. filed by the petitioner. Petitioner in the said O. A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal had challenged the order dated 26. 10. 1995, passed by the Director of Estates, cancelling the allotment of General Pool Accommodation to the petitioner as also the notice of demand dated 2. 8. 1996 demanding penal rent/damages amounting to Rs. 43,981. 00. ( 3 ) PETITIONER in this writ petition has also sought directions for regularization of the General Pool allotment of Quarter No. 488-A5, M. B. Road, New Delhi, on the normal licence fee. ( 4 ) THE facts culminating in the filing of the present writ petition may be briefly recapitulated: (i) Petitioner was working as a Section Officer in the Posts and Telegraph Audit Office, Delhi. In June 1994, petitioner was transferred to P and T Audit Office, Calcutta on promotion as Audit Officer with effect from 28. 6. 1994 (FN ). Petitioner immediately left for Calcutta and joined his duties. (II) Petitioner was not allotted accommodation on joining at Calcutta. He applied to the Director of Estates vide his letter dated 31. 10. 1994, for permission to retain the quarter in Delhi upto August 1995. Retention of the quarter was sought on the ground that his children were studying in School and were in the midst of their academic session. Petitioner s old parents were also stated to be staying in the said quarter. In these circumstances, the family could not shift to Calcutta. FURTHER details with regard to the classes in which the children were studying and their Schools were furnished by the petitioner vide letter dated 8. 12. 1994. Petitioner also reiterated his request for retention of the quarter upto August 1995 on the ground that he was expecting his re-transfer to Delhi. Petitioner in the said letter intimated that Licence Fee at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month had been recovered upto June 1994 by the Delhi Office. Licence fee for the later period upto October 1994 had been recovered by the P and T Audit Office at Calcutta. Petitioner in the said letter intimated that Licence Fee at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month had been recovered upto June 1994 by the Delhi Office. Licence fee for the later period upto October 1994 had been recovered by the P and T Audit Office at Calcutta. He indicated his willingness to pay licence fee from November 1994 at double the normal rate of licence fee. (III) Petitioner also requested for permission to retain the quarter for six months with effect from 1. 3. 1995 to 31. 8. 1995. He also submitted that his children were studying in Delhi and his old parents were residing there and it was very difficult in these circumstances to make the family shift from Delhi. (IV) Respondent Director of Estates vide its letter dated 9. 1. 1995 called for the certificates from the school of petitioner s children as well as payment by bank draft of the Licence Fee at double the normal rates. Petitioner s office in Calcutta vide its letter of 9. 3. 1995 furnished the requisite documents and information together with a fresh request for being permitted to retain the quarter upto August 1995. Petitioner was retransferred to Delhi and joined his duties at Delhi on 31. 8. 1995. (V) Petitioner, to his utter dismay, received an order on 26. 10. 1995, in terms of which the allotment of the quarter was deemed to have been cancelled on expiry of two months from the date of his transfer to Calcutta i. e. 28. 6. 1994. The said order is assailed by the petitioner as having been passed in a mechanical manner, in as much as, it directed the petitioner to hand-over vacant possession of the house by 28. 8. 1994. (VI) Petitioner thereafter made a representation on 23. 11. 1995 for regularization of the allotment. No reply was received to the said representation. Instead, a notice dated 2. 8. 1996, demanding penal rent was served on the petitioner, claiming Rs. 43,981. 00 , as penal rent damages upto July, 1996. Petitioner thereupon served notice dated 28. 9. 1996 calling upon respondent No. 2 to withdraw the notice of demand but to no avail. Respondent also issued demand notice under Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, which led the petitioner to challenge the order dated 26. 10. 1995 as well as the notice of demand dated 2. 8. 1996. Petitioner thereupon served notice dated 28. 9. 1996 calling upon respondent No. 2 to withdraw the notice of demand but to no avail. Respondent also issued demand notice under Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, which led the petitioner to challenge the order dated 26. 10. 1995 as well as the notice of demand dated 2. 8. 1996. (VII) The Tribunal noticed that number of adjournments had been sought by the applicant. Even on 8. 9. 1997, a proxy counsel had appeared seeking a day s adjournment and the matter had been fixed for 9. 9. 1997. None had appeared on 9. 9. 1997. In these circumstances, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order, without having the benefit of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents had agreed to regularization of allotment in cases similar to that of the petitioner. He refers to the case of one Jawahar Singh, wherein the respondents counsel before the Apex Court had confirmed that the order of regularization had been issued and nothing more was needed to be done in the said case. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, upon his transfer to Calcutta, was entitled to retain the government accommodation only for a period of two months in terms of SR. 317-B-11 of Government Residences Allotment Rules, 1963. After expiry of the period of two months, the allotment is deemed to have been cancelled and the retention of the premises by the petitioner for the period thereafter was unauthorised and illegal and, accordingly, he was liable to pay penal rent for the period of such unauthorised occupation. Rules SR 317-B-11, SR. 317-B-22 and SR. 317-B-26 of the Government Residences Allotment Rules, 1963, read as under: PERIOD for which allotment subsists and the concessional period for further retention.-- S. R. 317-B-11.-- (1) An allotment shall be effective from the date on which it is accepted by the officer and shall continue in force until,- (a)the expiry of the concessional period permissible under sub-clause (2) after the officer ceases to be on duty in en eligible office in Delhi; (b)it is cancelled by the Director of Estates or is deemed to have been cancelled under any provision in these rules; (c)it is surrendered by the officer, or (d)the officer ceases to occupy the residence. (2)A residence allotted to an officer may, subject to sub-rule (3) be retained on the happening of any of the events specified in column (1) of the table below for the period specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) thereof, provided that the residence is required for the bonafide use of the officer or members of his family-- EVENTS Permissible period for retention of the residence. (1) (2) (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) Transfer to a place outside Delhi 2 months. (v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Where a residence is retained under sub- rule (2) the allotment shall be deemed to be cancelled on the expiry of the admissible concessional periods unless immediately on the expiry thereof the officer resumes duty in an eligible office in Delhi. Overstayal in residence after cancellation of allotment.- S. R. 317-B-22.-- Where, after an allotment has been cancelled or is deemed to be cancelled under any provision contained in these rules, the residence remains or has remained in occupation of the officer to whom it was allotted or of any persons claiming through him, such officer shall be liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the residence, services, furniture and garden charges as may be determined by Government from time to time, or twice the licence fee he was paying, whichever is higher. SR. 317-B-25: RELAXATION of rules.--S. R. 317-B-25.-- The Government may for reasons to be recorded in writing relax all or any of the provisions of the rules in this Division in the case of any officer or residence or class of officers or type of residences. ( 8 ) ON a perusal of these rules, it is clear that in terms of sub-rule (ii) and (iii) of SR. 317-B-11 the allotment is deemed to be cancelled on the expiry of the period of two months from the date of transfer. ( 8 ) ON a perusal of these rules, it is clear that in terms of sub-rule (ii) and (iii) of SR. 317-B-11 the allotment is deemed to be cancelled on the expiry of the period of two months from the date of transfer. S. R. 317-B-22 further provides for payment of damages for use and occupation as determined by Government or twice the licence fee which ever is higher. ( 9 ) WE have perused the correspondence on record and considered the rival submissions of the parties. The position that emerges is that though strictly in terms of the Government Residences Allotment Rules, 1963 the allotment in favour of the petitioner stands cancelled and there would be liability to pay the penal rent and damages. However, in terms of S. R. 317-B-25 of the Rules the Government has the power to relax any of the provisions of the rules for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the instant case the Central Administrative Tribunal while dismissing the O. A. had itself recognised the hardship of the case and recommended sympathetic consideration of representation for payment in easy instalments. ( 10 ) TRANSFER is an exigency of service and the petitioner, responding to the call of duty, had joined his duties at Calcutta within two days from the date of his transfer from Delhi, leaving his family in Delhi. Admittedly, no accommodation was provided to the petitioner at Calcutta. The family could not shift on account of lack of accommodation at Calcutta as well as the fact that the children were studying in School in Classes XIIth, Xth and VIIIth respectively. The aged parents of the petitioner were also staying in Delhi in the premises in question. Petitioner had applied for permission to retain the accommodation beyond the permissible period and had also indicated his willingness to pay double the licence fee. In any event, petitioner was re-transferred to Delhi on 31. 8. 1995, i. e. within a period of 14 months only. ( 11 ) THE normal licence fee of the premises was Rs. 100. 00 per month. In terms of the notice dated 2. 8. 1996 monthly penal rent at the rate of Rs. 1941. 00 upto July, 1996 totalling Rs. 43,981. 00 is demanded. Vide notice dated 26. 10. 8. 1995, i. e. within a period of 14 months only. ( 11 ) THE normal licence fee of the premises was Rs. 100. 00 per month. In terms of the notice dated 2. 8. 1996 monthly penal rent at the rate of Rs. 1941. 00 upto July, 1996 totalling Rs. 43,981. 00 is demanded. Vide notice dated 26. 10. 1995, petitioner is sought to be fastened with damages for the period of overstay at the rate of Rs. 55. 00 per sq. mtr. of living area for the remaining period. This imposes on the petitioner very onerous liability arising from circumstances beyond his control. It is an admitted position that petitioner, on re-transfer to Delhi, was eligible for allotment of premises even if the earlier allotment is deemed to be cancelled under the Rules. Repeated representations by the petitioner for regularization of allotment were not heeded to. ( 12 ) THE peculiar facts of the case, as noted above, make out good grounds for the government to consider exercising its discretion under SR. 317-B- 25 of the Government Residences Allotment Rules, 1963, in favour of the petitioner and waive the damages/penal rent and regularize the allotment of accommodation in the name of the petitioner, at least from the date of his re-transfer to Delhi i. e. August, 1995. The impugned order and notices of demand dated 2. 8. 1996 and 26. 10. 1996 are quashed. ( 13 ) THE Writ Petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider afresh the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above.