JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioners are employees of the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar (for short OUAT). They have approached this Court being aggrieved by the Office Order dated 17th March, 2000 (Annexure-4) issued by the opposite party University imposing market rent/penal rent on them for different periods of their occupation of official quarters by them in consonance with the allotment orders. 2. According to the petitioners, in consonance with the Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology Employees’ (Conditions of Service) Statute, 1989 as well as other guide¬lines, quarters befitting the status of the petitioners were allotted to them at Bhubaneswar where they were posted. In course of their service the petitioners were transferred to several outlying Research Stations. After serving there, they were again brought back to their original places of posting at Bhubaneswar. They were entitled to retain the quarters allotted to them at Bhubaneswar and, as such, the action of the University to recover market rent/penal rent from their monthly salary in respect of the quarters occupied by them during the period they were away from Bhubaneswar on transfer is unjust and illegal. The letter dated 17th March, 2000, Annexure-4, reads as follows : “The following employees who have been transferred to different outlying Research/Extension Stations and not vacated the University Quarters are hereby charged usual rent, market rent and penal rent from the dates as indicated against each. The said rent shall be recovered from their monthly salaries from the month of February, 2001 and onwards. xx xx” According to the petitioners, issuance of the aforesaid Office Order, Annexure-4, is unjust, illegal and contrary to the Statute as well as earlier Office Orders issued. In support of their stand the petitioners seek to rely upon the Office Order of the University dated 3.11.1992, vide Annexure-I, which reads as follows:- “In pursuance to the Resolution No.2527 dt.27. 7.92 and No.2555 dt.25.9.92 of the Board of Management, the employees who have been transferred and posted in the outlying Research Sta¬tions and not occupying quarters there are allowed to retain their quarters at Bhubaneswar on payment of normal house-rent from 1.8.92, i.e. the date of implementation of the revised house-rent under the University as per Government norms till final decision in the High Court case No.OJC 6430/92. By Order Sd - Registrar” It is submitted by them that although they had been trans¬ferred and posted at outlying stations, they were not occupying any quarters at the place of their transfer and were allowed to retain their quarters at Bhubaneswar on payment of normal house rent till final decision in OJC No.6430 of 1992. The said Writ application had been filed by the petitioner therein with a prayer to permit him to occupy the quarters allotted to him at Bhubaneswar on payment of usual rent. That was disposed of on 16.11.1993 and in consonance with the direction of this Court the University made fresh allotment of quarters in favour of the said petitioner. 4. The petitioners further contend that in all the outly¬ing Research Stations to which they had been transferred, quar¬ters befitting their status were available, but they had not occupied the same during their posting at those places. In sup¬port of their case, the petitioners also rely upon an Office Order issued by the University dated 31.3.1993, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “In pursuance of Resolution No.2527 dated 27.7.92 and Resolution No.2555 dated 25.9.92 of the Board of Management, the following employees of this University who have not occupied the quarters in the outlying Stations and are eligible to retain their quarters at Bhubaneswar on payment of normal rent with effect from 1.8.91, are allowed to get back the refund of excess amount of penal rent recovered from their pay for the period noted against each. xx xx” According to the petitioners, in consonance with the deci¬sion of the University, the employees who were transferred to outlying stations and were not occupying quarters at the trans¬ferred place were permitted to occupy the quarters allotted to them at Bhubaneswar on payment of normal rent and, in fact, in respect of some of the employees from whom penal rent had been collected the same was directed to be refunded to them. 5. After receiving Rule, a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University in which it has been specifically averred that the petitioner in OJC No.6430 of 1991 was permitted to occupy the quarters allotted to him at Bhubanes¬war at normal rent on compassionate ground but the same benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. 5. After receiving Rule, a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University in which it has been specifically averred that the petitioner in OJC No.6430 of 1991 was permitted to occupy the quarters allotted to him at Bhubanes¬war at normal rent on compassionate ground but the same benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. It has been further sub¬mitted that to regulate allotment and retention of the quarters by employees of the OUAT adequate provision has been made in the OUAT Employees’ (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1989 which came into force w.e.f. 29.4.89 on being published in the Orissa Ga¬zette Extraordinary. The aforesaid Statute was formulated in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the OUAT Act, 1965 (Orissa Act 17 of 1965) and in supersession of the OUAT Statutes, 1966 insofar as they relate to matters provid¬ed thereunder, the Board of the management of the OUAT with the approval of the State Government made the said statutes to regu¬late the conditions of service of the officers (other than Vice-Chancellor), teachers and other employees of the OUAT. Chapter 3 of the OUAT Employees’ (Conditions of Service) Statutes, 1989 deals with residence. Statute 21 clearly provides that an employ¬ee is not entitled as a matter of right to allotment of residen¬tial quarters by the University. Residential quarters may be allotted subject to availability either to an individual employee or to the incumbent of a post discharging a particular responsi¬bility. In the latter case, when the employee concerned ceases to discharge that particular responsibility, which entitled him to the allotment, it shall be open to the University to cancel the allotment of the quarters in his favour. Similarly Statute 22(1) further says that unless otherwise provided in any general or special orders issued by the University, a residence allotted to an employee may be retained on the happening of any of the events specified in col.(2) of the table specified in the said statute for the period specified in the corresponding entry in col.(3) thereof. It is submitted that in case of transfer of an employee the maximum period for which the employee is entitled to retain quarters is for a period of two months from the date of making over charge. It is submitted that in case of transfer of an employee the maximum period for which the employee is entitled to retain quarters is for a period of two months from the date of making over charge. It is further submitted that as per the provisions contained in Statute 24(2) on expiry of the period prescribed under Statute 22 permitting an employee to retain the residential accommodation, the University may, for good and sufficient rea¬sons to be recorded in writing, permit an allottee to retain the said accommodation for a period not exceeding two months on payment of enhanced licence fee which shall be ten times the licence fee payable in respect of the quarters fixed under Stat¬ute 23 even in case of allottees who are exempted from payment of licence fee. Similarly Statute 25 provides that on expiry of the period prescribed under Statute 22 and Statute 24(2), as the case may be, permitting an employee to retain the residential accommo¬dation, the allotment of the accommodation in favour of an em¬ployee shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the employee shall be deemed to have been in unauthorized occupation of the accommodation unless he has been permitted to retain the said accommodation on payment of enhanced licence fee prescribed under Statute 24(2). It is pertinent to mention here that Statute 26 provides for eviction of unauthorized occupation which clearly states that the unauthorized occupant shall be charged penal licence fee at the rate of twenty times of the licence fee pay¬able in respect of the quarters fixed under Statute 23 from the date of unauthorized occupation till he is finally evicted, even in case of allottees who are exempted from payment of licence fee. 6. A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioners repudiating the stand taken in different paragraphs of the coun¬ter-affidavit reiterating the decision taken by the Board of Management as per Annexure-1 permitting the employees who were transferred to outlying stations and had not occupied quarters at those places, to occupy their quarters at Bhubaneswar at normal rent, and submitting that the averments made in the counter affidavit are therefore not tenable. According to the petitioners on 23.5.2001 another Office Order was issued to the effect that those employees who had been transferred to outlying stations and had been occupying quarters at the places of their posting were to vacate the quarters occupied by them at Bhubaneswar forthwith. Several other documents have also been filed from which it would reveal that most of the petitioners had not been allotted quar¬ters at the places to which they had been transferred. The peti¬tioners also rely upon different Office Orders from which it would reveal that the University had exempted payment of penal rent by the employees and directed to collect normal licence fee from those who were occupying quarters at Bhubaneswar while they were posted at outlying Research Centres and it is submitted that the petitioners could not be discriminated and that the direction for any recovery from their salary should be quashed. 7. In course of hearing Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the OUAT, forcefully submitted that the Statute shall override all Circulars. In view of the clear provision made in para 22 of the Statute, the employees who had not vacated quarters allotted to them at Bhubaneswar on being transferred from Bhubaneswar were liable to pay rent or licence fee at the market rate or penal rate, as the case may be, and any submission to the contrary is unjustified. According to him, the decision of this Court in OJC No.6430 of 1991 has absolutely no application to the case of the petitioners and that the order Annexure-1 which is the sole basis of filing the present Writ applications has no nexus with the present case. He reiterated that the petitioner in OJC No.6430 of 1991 had been shown compassion and the same cannot be stretched to the present petitioners under any circumstances as they are not similarly placed like the petitioner in OJC No.6430 of 1991. The present petitioners having occupied quarters at Bhubaneswar in spite of their transfer, in consonance with the provisions of the Statute they are bound to pay rent at the penal rate or market rate, as the case may be, and the University has rightly issued Office Order, vide Annexure-4, which is just and proper and the Writ applications have absolutely no merit. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the different Annexures and the Statute meticu¬lously. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the different Annexures and the Statute meticu¬lously. Para 22 of the Statute stipulates that unless otherwise provided by general or special order issued by the University, quarters allotted to an employee can be retained only for two months on payment of normal rent in case of transfer. In the case at hand, however, the Board pursuant to its Resolutions dated 27.7.1992 and 25.9.1992 directed that the employees posted at the outlying Research Stations who had not been provided with quar¬ters and/or were not occupying quarters there could retain their quarters at Bhubaneswar on payment of normal rent. In consonance with a Resolution of the Board, penal rent realized from six employees had been refunded to them. OJC No.6430 of 1991 was disposed of on 15th December, 1993. This Court had observed that as OUAT had allowed twelve other employees to occupy quarters at Bhubaneswar on payment of normal rent, the petitioner in that case could not be discriminated. It further appeared that normal rent had been collected from several employees who were occupying quarters at Bhubaneswar even after their transfer from Bhubanes¬war. 9. Law is well settled that an employee gets a right to occupy a Government quarters on the basis of its allotment made in his favour. His occupation of the said quarters becomes unau¬thorized from the date the allotment is cancelled and/or in consonance with law his allotment is deemed to be cancelled on happening of any specific event like transfer, retirement, etc. Not a scrap of paper has been f1led before this Court by the opposite parties from which it would reveal that the allotments of the quarters made in favour of the petitioners at Bhubaneswar were at any time cancelled, nor any order had been passed calling upon them to vacate the quarters, as stipulated in para 22 of the Statute. Para 26 of the Statute deals with eviction of unauthor¬ized occupants and demand of licence fee at penal rate. The same reads as follows :- “26. (1) The University may initiate action to evict a person who is in unauthorized occupation. Para 26 of the Statute deals with eviction of unauthor¬ized occupants and demand of licence fee at penal rate. The same reads as follows :- “26. (1) The University may initiate action to evict a person who is in unauthorized occupation. (2) In the event of action being initiated for evic¬tion, the unauthorized occupant shall be charged penal licence fee at the rate of twenty times of the licence fee pay¬able in respect of the quarters fixed under Statute 23 from the date of unauthorized occupation till he is finally evicted, even in case of allottees who are exempted from payment of licence fee.” A reading of the aforesaid paragraph reveals that only in the event of initiation of action for eviction, an unauthorized occupant shall be charged with penal licence fee. In the present case, no action for eviction is said to have been initiated against the petitioners. Thus the direction for recovery of rent at the penal rate as per para 26(2) of the Statute appears to be premature. A perusal of the materials further reveals that on 25th January, 2001 the Registrar of OUAT issued notice to the petitioners to vacate the quarters within a fortnight thereof. The said notice was subsequently modified by order dated 3.11.1992 to the extent that no employee shall be allowed to occupy the quarters at Bhubaneswar if he is given a posting and quarters is available at the site of his posting. Of course thereafter some modifications were also made with regard to occupation of quarters at Bhubaneswar in the event of posting by transfer to undivided KVK, Gajapati, Kandhamal and Boudh dis¬tricts. While matter stood thus, on 19.1.2005 the Board of OUAT again resolved that the employees transferred to outlying Re¬search Stations should not be allowed to retain quarters at Bhubaneswar beyond the admissible period. A perusal of different Notifications, the provisions of the Statute, the decisions taken by the Board of the University time and again and the Office Orders issued clearly reveals that as to from which date penal rent or market rent/licence fee would be charged from an employee who retained quarters allotted in his favour at Bhubaneswar though he was transferred to outlying Research Station was in a complete fluid stage till 19.1.2005 when the Board took a posi¬tive decision as stated above. 10. 10. All these facts and circumstances were admittedly not kept in mind while issuing the Office Order-Annexure-4 on 17.3.2001. Charging usual rent, market rent and penal rent should always be in consonance with the provisions made in the Statute as well as the decision taken by the Board and the Office Orders issued time to time. This position is very clear from para-22 of the Statute which stipulates that unless otherwise provided in any general or special order issued by the University, a resi¬dence allotted to an employee may be retained on the happening of any of the events specified in col.(2) of the table for the period indicated in the corresponding col.(3). The non obstante clause of the general or special orders issued by the University clearly brings within its ambit the decision of the Board or the Circulars issued by it. 11. In view of the discussions made above, this Court has no hesitation to quash the Order dated 17.3.2001, Annexure-4, so far as it relates to the petitioners and directs the University to reconsider the cases of the petitioners strictly in consonance with the provisions of the Statute, the Resolutions of the Board and the Office Orders issued by it at different times, if neces¬sary after giving opportunity to the petitioners to be heard, and I direct accordingly. With the aforesaid direction, all the Writ applications are disposed of. Applications disposed of.