Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records pertaining to the orders of the Respondent in his Letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/05-5, dated 09.10.2006 claiming recovery of rent from her, for the period from 11.07.2006 to 08.10.2006, from the Registry, High Court (after cancellation of allotment orders of Government Quarters RC 5 Lloyds Colony, Chennai-14 under the Lloyds Colony Scheme Area) and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the High Court, Madras on 01.02.1999 as a Copyist. She is working as an Assistant Section Officer since 13.08.2003. She registered her name to obtain a Government Quarters in March 2000. Her scale of pay is Rs.5500-175-9000 with effect from 13.08.2003. She has been allotted a Quarters RC 5 ('E' type) in Lloyds Colony, Chennai, after waiting for five years. 3. It is the stand of the petitioner that an allotment order of RC 5 ('E' type) Quarters in Lloyds Colony, Chennai dated 11.07.2006 has been signed by the Officer only on 12.09.2006. The same has been received by her on 18.09.2006. Within three days, she expressed her inability to take possession of the Quarters RC 5 ('E' type) in Lloyds Colony, Chennai, as it is meant for those whose time scale of pay is Rs.2750-3999. Also, it is not enough for accommodation of her family. 4. According to the Petitioner, in spite of compliance of condition specified in the allotment order in Letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/2006-3, dated 11.07.2006, the Respondent has issued an erroneous order in Letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/05-5, dated 09.10.2006 calling upon the Registrar of this Court to deduct the rent for the period from 11.07.2006 to 08.10.2006 and to remit the said amount into Government Accounts by intimating the same to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 5. As a matter of fact, in letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/2006-3 dated 11.07.2006, the Secretary to Government has in para No.3 stated that the rent for the allotted Quarters RC 5 will be recovered from the date of allotment order as per the Rules. Further, if the said allotment is refused to be accepted till the time, it is re-allotted, the rent will be recovered etc., 6. Further, if the said allotment is refused to be accepted till the time, it is re-allotted, the rent will be recovered etc., 6. The Petitioner has taken a plea that her salary is in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 with effect from 13.08.2003 and that being the factual position, it is improper on one's part to allot her the Quarters relating to the Government Employee whose time scale of pay is Rs.2750-3999. 7. The stand of the Petitioner is that the very allotment made to the Petitioner dated 11.07.2006 is an erroneous one and the same is illegal in law. Therefore, the demand made by the Respondent in communication dated 09.10.2006 requesting the Registrar of this Court to deduct the rental amount for the period from 11.07.2006 to 08.10.2006 is an illegal one. 8. Another plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that at the top of the impugned order of the Respondent, it is mentioned as Letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/2006-3, dated 11.07.2006, but the Secretary to the Government has affixed his signature on 12.09.2006 (as seen from the bottom of the letter) and clearly there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly two months in preparing and dispatching the letter to her. 9. The categorical stand of the Petitioner is that she received a letter only on 18.09.2006 in her reply dated 21.09.2006 addressed to the Joint Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009. She has further mentioned that since in the allotted portion there is no enough space, she has cancelled her allotment on 21.09.2006 and has intimated the said fact to the Secretariat as well as the Housing Board. In fact, she has prayed for reconsideration of the recovery of the actual rent from her and also to cancel the said recovery. 10. A glance of the letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/2006-3 dated 11.07.2006 of the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urband Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai35 shows that though the letter is dated 11.07.2006, the Secretary to the Government has put his signature only on 12.09.2006. Clearly there is a delay of nearly two months for the Secretary to affix his signature in the communication addressed to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-35 with a copy being marked to the Writ Petitioner and also the Registrar General, High Court, Madras-104. Clearly there is a delay of nearly two months for the Secretary to affix his signature in the communication addressed to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai-35 with a copy being marked to the Writ Petitioner and also the Registrar General, High Court, Madras-104. There is no explanation whatsoever for the said delay of two months, which made the Secretary to the Government, Housing and Urban Development Department to sign belatedly the letter addressed to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai. 11. In the present case an important fact to be taken note of is that the Petitioner in her reply dated 21.09.2006 after receiving the letter dated 18.09.2006 has clearly informed the Joint Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai that she has cancelled the allotment of Quarters and intimated the same to the Secretariat and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 12. When that being the position it is not proper on the part of the Respondent/Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai to claim deduction of the rental amount for the period from 11.07.2006 to 08.10.2006 as opined by this Court. 13. It is also not known as to how the Petitioner has been allotted her Quarters RC 5 ('E' type) in Llodys Colony, Chennai, when she is in the time scale of pay Rs.5500-175-9000 at the time of projecting an application to the proper Authority requesting for allotment of Quarters. Moreover, the allotment of Quarters pertaining to the Government Employee in the time scale of pay Rs.Rs.2750-3999 is different than that of the Government employee drawing salary in the time scale of pay of Rs.5500-175-9000. When there is a delay of nearly two months in affixing the signature of the Secretary to the Government as seen from the communication of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Department in his letter No.35290/HB 3(1)/2006-3 dated 11.07.2006, this Court is of the considered view that for no fault of the Petitioner she can be penalised by asking her head of the Institution viz., the Registrar, High Court, Madras to deduct the rent amount for the period from 11.07.2006 to 08.10.2006 in respect of residential Quarters RC 5 ('E' type) in Llodys Colony, Chennai. Such an action of the Respondent is an illegal one. Such an action of the Respondent is an illegal one. As such the communication of the Respondent dated 09.10.2006 is per se illegal, invalid and clearly unsustainable in the eye of the law. Therefore, this Court unhesitatingly quashes the impugned order of the Respondent dated 09.10.2006 to prevent an aberration of justice. Consequently, the Writ Petition succeeds. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.