Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition has been focussed as against the order and decreetal order dated 20.02.2012 passed by the learned V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in CMA No.179 of 2009 and to set aside the orders in No.C.19/47/2008/AEM(M)/7611 dated 29.07.2009 and in No.C.19/47/2008/AEM(M)/1214 dated 18.06.2009 on the file of the Assistant Estate Manager, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: a) Indubitably and indisputably the revision petitioner is a Senior Auditor working in the Accountant General Office, Teynampet, Madras, who was transferred from Madras to Madurai Branch with effect from 16.01.2006. Thereafter, at his request, he was re-transferred to Chennai with effect from 05.03.2007. On his initial transfer he did not vacate the premises as he made representation to the effect that in view of his son's education, he could not holus bolus vacate the premises and thereafter also on health grounds, it appears, he wanted the authority to show indulgence towards him to retain the quarters. After his re-transfer to Chennai, he continues till date in the same premises. However, the Estate Officer, the respondent herein took initiative to recover the licence fee with damages as contemplated under the Rules and he passed orders. b) As against which, CMA was filed, which was also dismissed. c) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat by placing reliance on the grounds of revision that his client underwent operation for replacing both his knees and because of such health grounds, he cannot simply vacate the premises all of a sudden; over and above that he happened to be the Senior officer and the authorities concerned are having ample powers to regularise his occupation in the same premises and in such a case the High Court might interfere and set aside the orders of the authorities below. 5. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent in a bid to extirpate and torpedo the arguments and pleas as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner would develop his argument, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: The law is so clear that a Government Servant who has been transferred from one place to another should vacate the premises and at the most, he could have the quarters only upto a period of eight months and that too subject to certain conditions; but in this case the factual position is so clear that he was re-transferred not within the 12 months' period from the initial date of transfer but after 12 months' and in such a case, S.R.317-B-11 of the Government of India Rules, is also not applicable in favour of the petitioner and the appellate authority adverting to the said provision dismissed the appeal warranting no interference in this revision. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent also would invite the attention of this court to the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its direction dated 26.09.2006, which would run thus: "Secretary, Urban Development Ministry, Government of India is directed to see that copies of para 3 of our orders dated 30.8.2006 containing proposed action against the unauthorized occupants are circulated to each of them which runs thus: Affidavit shall further state clearly for what period 497 persons remained in unauthorized occupation and what is the amount of Rent/Penal rent etc., the State is entitled to realize from them by deducting every month from their salary or post retirement benefits or pension or attaching their properties in accordance with the provisions of relevant Public Demand Recovery Act. It should be also stated in the affidavit as to whether by not vacating the Government accommodation such unauthorized occupants incur any criminal liability under the Public Premises Act or Indian Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force so that in case any such liability is incurred directions may be given to launch criminal prosecution against them by filing complaint in the Court. Further affidavit shall state as to why the appropriate Government/Authority/ Body/High Court be not directed to consider desirability of initiating proceedings under the relevant Service Rule and suspend the unauthorized occupants which includes Judicial Officers in contemplation of departmental proceedings as such conduct of theirs is unbecoming of Judicial Officers/Government Servants and in future also, no sooner occupation of a person become unauthorized, such action be taken immediately." Accordingly the Government is bound by the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. In view of the admitted and accepted, unassailable and unarguable, factual scenario nothing could be found fault with the order of the appellate authority. The learned Judge held that re-transfer was beyond 12 months period and in such a case, the question of regularising his occupation in the same premises would not arise. In fact, the respondent authority is not having carteblancheto pass any order and that too as against the mandate as found embodied in S.R.317-B-11 of the Government of India Rules. 8. In view of the well settled legal position, I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the court below. 9. On hearing the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would make an extempore submission that if all of a sudden a Government servant in service is evicted forcibly, it would be a deleterious experience for him. 10. Considering his representation, I would like to pass a direction to the effect that the petitioner shall vacate and handover vacant possession to the respondent authority by the end of this month, i.e. On or before 31.07.2012 peacefully and to that effect he shall file an affidavit of undertaking before this court. 11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.