Judgment 1. The dispute in this writ petition only relates to penal rent which the respondents- Rajendra Agricultural University has charged and deducted from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner for his occupying the official quarter for certain period even after his retirement. 2. Learned counsel for the University submitted that under regulation 11.1 of the Rajendra Agricultural University (Residential Accommodation) Regulation, 1994, the University is entitled to recover penal rent from the employee of the University as a consequence of non- vacation of official quarter on his retirement as per the rate prescribed therein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said regulation is not in force as the same has not been published in the official gazette as required under section 37(1) of the Bihar Agricultural University Act. In support of this, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in paragraph 10 and 13 of the writ petition which have not been denied by the respondent University though a counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf. Besides this, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in identical case bearing C.W.J.C. No. 8449 of 1994 and C.W.J.C. No. 8361 of 1994, disposed of by common order dated 20th September, 1995, this Court held that though the employees cannot claim as a matter of right to remain in the quarters after their superannuation on the ground that they have not been paid their post retiral benefits, but the University cannot be allowed to take an unreasonable stand in the sense that it will not clear post retirement dues of the petitioners for an indefinite period and at the same time insist on payment of penal rent. Accordingly, this Court held that charging of penal rent is unreasonable and arbitrary and further directed the University not to charge penal rent from the petitioners of the said cases and if already charged, the same should be returned to them. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in another case bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11883 of 1997 (Akhauri Baban Prasad Sinha V/s. Rajendra Agricultural University and others, disposed of on 1.12.1998), this Court did not approve charging of penal rent in the case where the University failed to pay post retiral dues. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in another case bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11883 of 1997 (Akhauri Baban Prasad Sinha V/s. Rajendra Agricultural University and others, disposed of on 1.12.1998), this Court did not approve charging of penal rent in the case where the University failed to pay post retiral dues. It is submitted that in the said case Court awarded penal interest to compensate the penal rent which was sought to be charged from the petitioner by the University. 5. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already vacated the quarter and is prepared to pay the normal rent, but there cannot be any justification for the University to adopt different stands in the case where the Court has passed the order and the present case. 6. Learned counsel for the University has not been able to show that the said regulation was ever published in the official gazette. Section 37(1) provides that the authorities of the University may, by notification in the official gazette, make regulations consistent with the Act and the Statutes. 7. Having regard to the said facts, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the action of the University in charging penal rent and taking it from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent University to release the said payment in favour of the petitioner within three weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order, after deducting the normal rent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the Group Insurance amount has not been rightly calculated according to the rules. The petitioner in this regard may file his representation in terms of the general direction of this Court given in the case of Mostt. Rukmini Devi V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1996(2) PLJR 348 and in the case of Dr. Ganganand Jha V/s. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University and others, reported in 1997(1) BLJ 93 , before the competent authority which, if filed within three weeks, shall be disposed of strictly in terms of the said general directions.