ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard Shri Chandra Prakash Jain, the appellant, who is appearing in the case in person and Shri Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The controversy raised before us relates to the demand of penal rent from the appellant and its adjustment from his retiral dues. Though the petitioner retired from service on 1-11-1990, he vacated the government quarters, which he was occupying when he was in service, on 27-2-1997. Thus, he remained in unauthorised occupation of the quarters for more than six years. The question for consideration is what is the rent which he is liable to pay for such unauthorised occupation of the quarters? Certain rules, circulars and executive instructions have been placed before us by the appellant and also learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. We are satisfied that the deduction of the sum of Rs 2,07,979 from the retiral benefits of the appellant, is erroneous. The calculation is based on a circular which is not applicable in the case. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is liable to pay three times the standard rent of the residential quarters in his occupation during the period of overstay beyond four months from the date of retirement. The standard rent will be calculated taking into account the last basic pay drawn by the appellant before retirement. This exercise will be completed within three months from today and the surplus amount, if any, deducted from the retiral benefits of the appellant, will be paid to him together with interest @ 12% PA from the date of deduction till payment. S. The judgment of the High Court under challenge is modified to the extent noted above. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.