Judgment :- The petitioner is an Accounts Officer (Audit) School, Education Department. While he was working at Coimbatore, the petitioner was allotted a quarters in the Race Course Colony. In the month of August, 1990, he was transferred to Tiruppur. Since the petitioners children were studying at Coimbatore, he had submitted a representation to retain the quarters at Coimbatore. Based on his representation, the permission had been granted for retaining the quarters till May, 1993. Subsequently, by a proceedings, dated 20.9.1993, the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarters. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1325 of 1993, on the file of the Sub Court, Coimbatore. By an order made in I.A.No.1534 of 1993, the Sub Court, Coimbatore, had granted an order of status quo. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20065 of 1993 and it was disposed of by an order, dated 11. 1993, with the direction to approach the proper authority. As per the said direction, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department. 2. Based on the said representation, an order, dated 4. 1994, was passed granting permission to the petitioner to retain the quarters upto 30.6.1994. As per the said order, the petitioner had vacated the quarters and handed over the possession, on 26. 1994. After a lapse of three months, the second respondent, by his proceedings, dated 29. 1994, had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,256/-for the occupation of the quarters. The petitioner had submitted a reply, dated 10. 1994. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued a show cause notice, dated 13. 1995, to the petitioner for the recovery of Rs.27,228/- as penal rent. For the said show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted a reply, dated 13. 1995. However, without considering the reply, the first respondent, by his letter, dated 16. 1995, had confirmed the earlier order, dated 13. 1995. 3. It has been further stated that by an order, dated 20.2.1993, the petitioner was permitted to retain the quarters till the month of May, 1993. The Government had permitted the petitioner to retain the quarters upto 30.6.1994. Hence, the question of paying the penal rent does not arise in the present case. 1995. 3. It has been further stated that by an order, dated 20.2.1993, the petitioner was permitted to retain the quarters till the month of May, 1993. The Government had permitted the petitioner to retain the quarters upto 30.6.1994. Hence, the question of paying the penal rent does not arise in the present case. Since the Government had permitted the petitioner to retain the quarters till 30.6.1994, the respondents are estopped from demanding the payment of penal rent from the petitioner. Further, there was no indication in the orders passed by the Government granting the permission to the petitioner to occupy the quarters that he has to pay the penal rent for the period of extended occupation. Even though the petitioner had vacated the quarters, on 30.6.1994, the impugned order levies penal rent on the petitioner till September, 1994. 4. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the claims made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that based on the request of the second respondent vide his Lr.No.R5/7527/93, dated 20.2.1995, to effect recovery to the tune of Rs.27,138/- towards economic/penal rent for the period from 8/90 to 9/94, and Rs.90/-towards water charges, from the pay of the petitioner. The first respondent, in his letter, No.583/B2/1995, dated 13. 1995, had called for an explanation from the petitioner to be offered within 3 days as to why the amounts specified by the second respondent should not be deducted from his pay. The petitioner in his letter, dated 13. 1995, has stated that he had occupied the flat from 8/90 to 6/94 based on the orders of the Government and of the Court. Therefore, the question of levying economic/penal rent would not arise. The petitioner was informed in the office letter No.583/B2/95, dated 16. 1995 that he was permitted to retain the quarters after his transfer from Coimbatore from 8. 1990 to 30.6.1994 and that he had to pay penal rent calculated at one and half times the last rent paid by him as per 6(1) of G.O.Ms.No.881, Public Works Department, dated 15. 1988. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to remit the penal rent to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Account. Even though the Government had granted permission to the petitioner to retain the quarters, the rent to be paid by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had not been specified. 1988. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to remit the penal rent to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board Account. Even though the Government had granted permission to the petitioner to retain the quarters, the rent to be paid by the petitioner to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had not been specified. Therefore, the petitioner was called upon to pay the penal rent as per paragraph 6(i) of G.O.Ms.No.881, Public Works Department, dated 15. 1988. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 16. 1995, made in Na.Ka.No.583/A2/95. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was occupying the quarters at Race Course Colony, Coimbatore, even after he had been transferred to Tiruppur. Even though the Government had permitted the petitioner to retain the quarters, as a special case, upto 30.6.1994, the claim of the petitioner that penal rent cannot be levied for such occupation cannot be sustained. The penal rent has been levied against the petitioner only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.881, Public Works Department, dated 15. 1988. 6. The Contentions of the petitioner that he had retained the quarters only with the permission of the Government and that he was not liable to pay the penal rent cannot be countenanced, in view of the fact that G.O.Ms.No.881, Public Works Department, dated 15. 1988, is clear in stating that in case of an extension granted by the Government for the occupancy of the Public Works Department quarters beyond the date of retirement or transfer etc., the penal rate may be one and half times of the rent last paid and in cases of continued occupation of the quarters, without proper authority after retirement or transfer etc., it would be three times of the rent last paid. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 16. 1995, in Na.Ka.No.583/A2/95, demanding penal rent from the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.