Judgment :- The petitioner was a Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) in the Army Postal Service. On being deputed by the postal department, he served the Indian Army in the Army Postal Service from 112. 67 upto 30.9.98 till the date of attaining the age prescribed for service in the Army Postal Service. The petitioner is governed by the Army rules and regulations while he was at the service of the Army Postal Service. 2. As per the accommodation provided for defence services, the JCOs are authorized 75% of the married accommodation and 25% single accommodation. While the petitioner was serving under the Additional Director General of Army Postal Service, he was given the quarters at No.61, Sector-II, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. It was allotted to him as JCO in terms of his turn, which fell on 9. 89. He occupied the said quarters from 18. 89. 3. It is stated that due to acute shortage of married accommodation and to provide the JCOs and other rank personnel equal number of married accommodation, a standing operative procedure was prepared in terms of Regulation 1025 of the Regulations for Army 1987 (Revised) regulations. At the time of allotment of the quarters, the tenure/period was not prescribed and, however, it was implemented to all occupants. The respondents in view of the increased strength of all the JCOs/ORs owing to the induction of new Directorate, separate warning orders for vacating the accommodation became not mandatory and not necessary, since all the ranks were requested to follow the circulars in letter and spirit. 4. The respondents had informed the petitioner through the Directorate letter no.502/1/Q3 dated 28. 95 for vacating the married accommodation and to take civil accommodation, for which compensatory allowance was paid by the respondents. However, without informing his authorities, the petitioner continued to be in the occupation of the accommodation. In the case of the petitioner, his married accommodation had expired on 15. 93. He went to an U.N. Mission on 25. 93 without obtaining clearance from the office of the Additional Director. Since his occupation of the married accommodation was unauthorized, the damages for the illegal occupation was claimed from him. 5. It is this demand which is challenged in this writ petition. Pending this writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint to the authorities by his complaint dated 196. Since his occupation of the married accommodation was unauthorized, the damages for the illegal occupation was claimed from him. 5. It is this demand which is challenged in this writ petition. Pending this writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner had filed a statutory complaint to the authorities by his complaint dated 196. The said complaint was rejected by the headquarters by order dated 96. Thereafter, the petitioner had vacated the premises on 197. 6. A detailed counter affidavit dated 111. 2001 is filed by the contesting respondents refuting the contentions raised by the petitioner. Pending the writ petition, the petitioner had the benefit of an interim order, which was also made absolute on 28. 2003. Because of this the amounts withheld from his terminal benefits was also released to the petitioner. It is stated by the petitioner that there was no demand certificate sought for and that the proceeding initiated by the Army is illegal, as he was employed under the Chief Postmaster General of Tamil Nadu and therefore any action taken by any other authority was not valid. 7. Per contra, Mrs. Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim to hold on the quarters without there being any corresponding right cannot be entertained by this Court, as there is no judicial review permissible in such matters. It is not as if the petitioners entitlement to allotment of quarters is part of the condition of service. Further, since there is a greater demand for quarters, the allotment has to be made in an equitable manner and opportunity has to be granted to all persons serving under them. She also submitted that the petitioners highhanded action of going for a U.N. Mission without informing the respondents and retaining the quarters during that period was also illegal. Further his statutory complaint made against the authorities was rejected by the high command. In the light of the same, she prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 8. It must be stated that the petitioner had not relied any particular rule or instruction in support of his case for retention of the quarters. In spite of the allotment stood cancelled and he has been specifically informed he held on to the quarters. Further his going away to the U.N. Mission without informing the authorities and retained the quarters is nothing but a dog in the manger policy. In spite of the allotment stood cancelled and he has been specifically informed he held on to the quarters. Further his going away to the U.N. Mission without informing the authorities and retained the quarters is nothing but a dog in the manger policy. It is also brought to the notice that Regulation 1025 of the Defence Service Regulations relating to vacation of the married quarters, clearly prescribes conditions under which quarters can be retained. In that, sub-regulation (v) clearly states that when the quarters is required for allotment to another JCO/WO/OR in accordance with the station/unit orders governing the allotment, this has to be vacated and this did not form part of the exception to the rule. 9. Therefore, in the absence of any legal or statutory right on the part of the petitioner to retain the quarters, this Court cannot interfere with the impugned action. It also did not form part of any service condition of the petitioner. Once the decision that retention of quarters is illegal, the consequent claim for damages for the illegal retention will be followed. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court did not find any substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In the light of the writ petition being dismissed, it is open to the respondents to take steps to recover the amounts from the petitioner. No costs.