Judgment 1. The petitioner joined as a Lab Assistant on 03.11.1972 in the Technical Education Department. He was promoted as Workshop Instructor and transferred from T.P.E.V.R. Government Polytechnic College, Vellore, to Government Polytechnic College, Krishnagiri. 2. While he was working in Government Polytechnic College, Vellore, he was occupying Government quarters. Since he was transferred to Krishnagiri, he was asked to vacate the quarters at Vellore. He requested the Principal of the Government Polytechnic College, Krishnagiri, to allot him the quarters. 3. In the circumstances, the Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Krishnagiri, passed the order dated 06.07.1998 in Proc.No.1568/E/01, allotting him the quarters meant for the post of Lecturers, as the same was lying vacant. The said quarters was occupied by one Assistant Thiru.Chellappan and he retired from service on 30.06.1998. Hence, the said quarters was allotted to him, and in the allotment order, it is stated that as per the rules, 1.5% of the salary would be deducted towards the occupation of the quarters. 4. While so, the impugned order of recovery dated 26.08.2003 in Proc.No.1568/E/01, was passed by the Principal – the respondent for recovery of Rs.27,652/-, as he was occupying the quarters meant for higher category of employees. 5. When the petitioner requested to withdraw the order of recovery, dated 26.8.2003, the order dated 08.09.2003 in Proc.No.1568/E/01, was passed affirming the earlier order. After the said recovery order, the petitioner had shifted to the quarters meant for his category. Hence, he filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 26.08.2003 and 08.09.2003. 6. A reply affidavit is filed stating that the petitioner was a Workshop Instructor at Government Polytechnic College, Krishnagiri, but he occupied the quarters meant for the lecturers. It is stated that the quarters of the Lecturer is a spacious one having a floor area of 860 sq.ft. with two bed rooms, one drawing room, one dining hall and one kitchen with separate toilet and bath room. A meager amount of Rs.349/- only was deducted from his salary for occupying such a spacious quarters. It is averred that as per G.O.Ms.No.328, Public Works (H2) Department, dated 28.08.2002, the Government ordered for recovery of higher percentage of deduction from the House Rent Allowance, if higher type of quarters is allotted. A meager amount of Rs.349/- only was deducted from his salary for occupying such a spacious quarters. It is averred that as per G.O.Ms.No.328, Public Works (H2) Department, dated 28.08.2002, the Government ordered for recovery of higher percentage of deduction from the House Rent Allowance, if higher type of quarters is allotted. Based on the aforesaid Government Order, the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 was passed for recovery of Rs.27,652/-, which was later revised by the order dated 22.9.2003 modifying the aforesaid order to recover a sum of Rs.20,966/-, as the earlier order was incorrectly passed. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Workshop Instructor, when he was alloted quarters by the respondent by the order dated 06.07.1998. It is relevant to extract the following passage from paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit : “3. ...... The appellant Thiru. K. Govindasamy had submitted a letter dated 9.3.1998 on the joining date itself requesting the respondent to allot him the Government quarters to accommodate his family. In Vellore also he had occupied the Government Quarters. Owing to non-availability of quarters at Krishnagiri to his pay category the quarters had not been allotted to him. In the meantime the Principal, TPEVR Government Polytechnic College, Vellore, had given a memo instructing the applicant to vacate the quarters immediately. After the receipt of notice to vacate the quarters immediately, occupied by the applicant at Vellore he had sought the permission of the Principal, TPEVR Government Polytechnic College, Vellore, to grant him one month time in his letter dated 28.05.1998 to vacate the quarters in anticipation of getting quarters at this new station (Krishnagiri). This letter clearly reveals that he is in dire necessity of quarters. Accordingly, the quarters available in the campus had been allotted in this office Proc.No.1568/E/98, dated 06.07.1998 with conditions. The condition No.5 says that “The rent will be deducted from the pay every month as per Tamil Nadu State Government Rules in force from time to time plus charges towards amenities.” 9. It is relevant to extract the order dated 06.07.1998 of the respondent : “CHART” 10. The allotment order dated 06.07.1998 makes it clear that the quarters was earlier occupied by one Thiru.Chellappan, Assistant and not by a Lecturer. It is relevant to extract the order dated 06.07.1998 of the respondent : “CHART” 10. The allotment order dated 06.07.1998 makes it clear that the quarters was earlier occupied by one Thiru.Chellappan, Assistant and not by a Lecturer. Furthermore, it is stated that to avoid keeping the quarters vacant as well as to avoid monetary loss to the Government, the order of allotment was made for the petitioner by the respondent on his own. The said Chellappan, who is not a Lecturer, but an Assistant, was not directed to pay higher rent. It amounts to discrimination. Hence, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay higher rent. 11. It is seen that along with the allotment order conditions of allotment are stated. Condition No.5 is relied on by the respondent for seeking to collect excess rent from the petitioner for occupying spacious quarters. Condition No.5 is extracted hereunder : “5. The rent will be deducted from the pay every month as per Tamil Nadu State Government Rules in force from time to time plus charges towards amenities.” 12. Firstly, the petitioner was not categorically put on notice that he would have to pay higher rent for occupying the spacious quarters. Condition No.5 is a vague one. The State Government rules stipulates, on the other hand, as found in the order of allotment, that 1.5% of pay and HRA shall be deducted towards the quarters. Accordingly, it was also deducted. The petitioner had no quarrel over the same. But the petitioner was asked to pay more amount on the ground that he was occupying the spacious quarters. He did not ask for any spacious quarters. It was allotted by the Principal on his own. The aforesaid extraction of order of allotment makes this fact very clear. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay more rent, particularly, when he was not put on notice that the said quarters could cost more to him. 13. Furthermore, the reliance placed by the respondent on G.O.Ms.No.328, Public Works Department, dated 28.08.2002, could be of no use, since the said G.O.Ms.No.328 was issued subsequent to the allotment of quarters. When the petitioner was allotted quarters in 1998, G.O.Ms.No.328 was not in existence. After the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.328, he was also not put on notice either to pay enhanced rent or to vacate the quarters. The said G.O.Ms.No.328 cannot be applied retrospectively. When the petitioner was allotted quarters in 1998, G.O.Ms.No.328 was not in existence. After the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.328, he was also not put on notice either to pay enhanced rent or to vacate the quarters. The said G.O.Ms.No.328 cannot be applied retrospectively. On the other hand, the order of recovery was issued without even notice. 14. As soon as the recovery order was passed, the petitioner vacated the quarters and he was allotted the quarters of his category. 15. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be blamed for occupying the quarters from 1998 to 2003 meant for the Lecturer, particularly, when the same was alloted by the Principal on the sole ground that it was remaining vacant and no Lecturer occupied the same. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned order is highly arbitrary and the same is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. No costs.