Judgment The first respondent/applicant, being aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the first petitioner herein and order dated 04.04.2012 and memo dated 19.04.2012 passed by the second petitioner herein, wherein, recovery of damage rent and water charges to the tune of Rs.6,08,606/- on the basis of unauthorised occupation of staff quarters for the period from 26.03.1992 to 24.11.2011 was ordered, preferred an Original Application before the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal for short). Besides, she sought a direction to the respondents therein to settle death gratuity and all service benefits of her husband with 12% interest and to appoint her on compassionate ground. She further sought refund of the amount of H.R.A. and C.C.A. and standard licence fee recovered from her husband's pay for the period from 01.06.1994 till his death, i.e., 05.07.2011, with 36% interest p.a. and penal interest at the rate of 12%. In addition, she sought a further direction to the respondents to refund the withheld amount of irregular payment of H.R.A, Rs.21,584/- payable to her mother-in-law towards pension arrears and Rs.46,379/- towards arrears of pay due to VI Pay Commission orders with interest at the rate of 36% p.a. and penal interest at the rate of 12%, to her. 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the father-in-law of the first respondent/applicant, viz., Deenadayalan, while working as L.S.G. Postal Assistant in the Postal Department, died in harness on 25.11.1991. The quarter in question at Mylapore was allotted to him. After his demise, the widow of the said Deenadayalan and his son D. Sriramkumar, who is the husband of the first respondent/applicant, continued to live in the said house without any objection. Thereafter, the husband of the first respondent/applicant was appointed on compassionate ground and H.R.A. and Standard Licence Fee was deducted from his salary. The said D. Sriramkumar also died in harness on 15.07.2011. Thereafter, despite repeated requests made by the first respondent/applicant for death gratuity and other benefits, no relief was granted, except provisional family pension till December 2011. When the first respondent/applicant was asked to pay damage rent and also water charges to the tune of Rs.6,08,606/-, being aggrieved by the same, she preferred the Original Application, being O.A. No.559 of 2012 before the Tribunal, seeking the afore-stated reliefs. 3. When the first respondent/applicant was asked to pay damage rent and also water charges to the tune of Rs.6,08,606/-, being aggrieved by the same, she preferred the Original Application, being O.A. No.559 of 2012 before the Tribunal, seeking the afore-stated reliefs. 3. The Tribunal, having examined all aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the first respondent/applicant, with her late husband, who was an employee of the appellant Department, was permitted to retain the quarters till 24.11.2011 and for the said period, House Rent Allowance to the tune of Rs.57,900/-, which was initially paid, was subsequently recovered from him in instalments. Thus, for the said quarter occupied by first respondent/applicant and her family, House Rent Allowance was deducted from the salary of the first respondent/applicant's husband. Several cases of irregularities, in the meantime, were lodged against the first respondent/applicant's husband, which came to be closed on account of his death. 4. According to the first respondent/applicant, the pendency of cases of alleged irregularities is not relevant to the dispute involved here with regard to payment of damages and arrears. 5. The Tribunal held as under: “11. It is seen that the respondents themselves issued orders treating the occupation of the staff quarters by the family members of late Dheenadayalan as “unauthorized” only on 05.10.2009, i.e., after a period of nearly 18 years. The above act of the respondents would go to show how they are acting in such matters. In view of the above position and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are not entitled to levy damage rent. However, they are entitled to recover the normal licence fee from the family of the deceased Government servant from the date of death of Deenadayalan till the vacation of quarters by the applicant. The respondents are further directed to treat the entire period of stay in the quarters by the family members of late Deenadayalan as authorised one.” 6. The Tribunal further directed the respondents therein to calculate the normal licence fee for the period of stay in the staff quarters by the family members of late Deenadayalan and after adjusting the amount already recovered, the balance may be recovered from the DCRG of the first respondent/applicant's husband, which was yet to be paid. The Tribunal further directed the respondents therein to calculate the normal licence fee for the period of stay in the staff quarters by the family members of late Deenadayalan and after adjusting the amount already recovered, the balance may be recovered from the DCRG of the first respondent/applicant's husband, which was yet to be paid. With regard to the relief of grant of appointment on compassionate ground, the first respondent/applicant was directed to work out the remedy in accordance with law. 7. We have examined all the facts of the case in the light of sub-rule 3(b) of SR 317B, which provides for consideration of “ad hoc allotment in the name of relation.” 8. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the first respondent/applicant's husband was allowed to continue to reside in the staff quarters for a very limited period till the year 2009. When it was detected that House Rent Allowance was paid to the husband of the first respondent/applicant wrongly, it appears that the petitioners had also taken the case as proper allotment of the said quarter to another employee of the Department. But, there is no dispute that the husband of the first respondent/applicant was appointed on compassionate ground on account of the death of late Deenadayalan. At this stage, causing a recovery to the extent of Rs.6,08,606/- would undoubtedly create untold misery to the widow, viz., the first respondent/applicant, whose husband had died in harness. 9. The Tribunal has rightly examined the case on its facts, wherein, the first respondent/applicant was permitted to live in a house, along with her husband and other members of the family and passed the impugned order, which is just and proper, requiring no interference. In the facts and circumstances of the case, which may not be cited as a precedent, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, leaving the question of law open to be decided in the appropriate case. 10. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.