Judgment : 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent, dated 25.08.2009, and to direct the first respondent to pay the withheld amount of 60% of pay revision arrears to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was an Associate Lecturer in the Central Polytechnic, Chennai and he submitted a representation during 1987 for allotment of residential quarters. The request was favourably considered and the petitioner was allotted a quarter bearing No.D-8, Tod Hunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015, by G.O.Ms.No.1125, dated 03.06.1987. The petitioner continued in occupation of the quarter till 29.05.2001 and thereafter vacated and handed over vacant possession after he retired from service on superannuation. While the petitioner was in occupation of the quarters, the first respondent by communication dated 26.02.1997, called upon the petitioner to vacate the residential quarters on the ground that the petitioner's basic pay had exceeded Rs.4,000/-, as on 26.02.1997 his basic pay was Rs.4125/-, the first respondent referred to G.O.Ms.No.995, Public Works Department, dated 09.05.1990 to be the basis for the order dated 26.02.1997. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.429, dated 18.08.1999, by which the Government revised the eligibility pay range, consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 6th Pay Commission, by virtue of which all category of employees were granted higher scale of pay. In terms of annexure 3 of the said Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.429, the revised scale of pay for occupation of PWD quarters at Tod Hunter Nagar, Chennai 600 015 was fixed at Rs.14,050/-. 3. It appears that an issue came up before this Court, somewhat identical to the case of the petitioner in the case of P.Mariyappan, who was working as a Senior Lecturer in English at the Central Polytechnic, Chennai and who approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13635 of 2004, praying for a direction upon the respondents to settle his gratuity amount. The Government resisted the writ petition by contending that the petitioner therein was due and liable to pay penal rent for the Government Residential quarters occupied by him, since he continued to occupy in the same Government quarter, even after his basic pay was revised and that his occupation was contrary to G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990. The writ petition was allowed, as against which the Government preferred appeal in W.A.No.4188 of 2004. The writ petition was allowed, as against which the Government preferred appeal in W.A.No.4188 of 2004. The Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 31.03.2005, dismissed the Writ Appeal holding that if the writ petitioner therein had crossed the pay a ceiling limit, then he ought to have been granted alternate accommodation. 4. The petitioner herein on coming to know of the said judgment submitted a representation to the first respondent, dated 07.12.2005 and requested for issuance of "no demand certificate" so that his pay commission arrears could be disbursed. The said representation was not considered and the first respondent by order dated 25.08.2009, stated that penal rent has to be recovered from the petitioner for the period from 01.10.1995 to 29.05.2001 and the same has to be recovered and remitted into the particular head of account. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. S.Sadasharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal and passed without any justification. It is submitted that in the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.1125, dated 03.06.1997, there is no such ceiling limit specified and the petitioner cannot be directed to pay penal rent merely because his basic pay was revised by the Government, subsequent to his allotment of the quarter. Further, it is submitted that the order dated 26.02.1997, calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises, was issued based on G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990. The said Government order cannot be relied upon, since the Government has revised the ceiling limit vide G.O.Ms.No.429, dated 18.08.1999, fixing the ceiling as Rs.14,050/-and this Government Order should be given effect to from 01.01.1996 and therefore, impugned demand of penal rent is wholly without jurisdiction. Further, it is submitted that the first respondent failed to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4188 of 2004. 6. Mr. Further, it is submitted that the first respondent failed to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4188 of 2004. 6. Mr. R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents by referring to the counter affidavit submitted that the petitioner cannot continue in occupation of the quarter, since his basic pay was beyond the cut off limit prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.995, and the Rule prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.995, fixing maximum ceiling limit of basic pay is with an intention to give an opportunity to all Government servants who aspire to get Government Residential accommodation and the petitioner can very well apply for higher type of quarters as per his pay range. 7. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 8. The impugned demand for penal rent for the period from 01.10.1995 to 29.05.2001 is solely based upon G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990. Under the said Government Order, the Government took a decision that consequent on the revision of scale of pay of Government servants based on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 5th Pay Commission decided to enhance the maximum ceiling limit of basic pay for occupation of Government quarters in Tod Hunter Nagar, Chennai-15, and the maximum limit for occupation of Public Works Department quarters at Tod Hunter Nagar, Chennai-15, was fixed at Rs.4,000/-per month in the revised scale of pay and the said Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990 was given retrospective effect from 27.06.1989, the date on which, the revised scale of pay was announced by the Government accepting the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 5th Pay Commission. 9. It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990, stood superseded as a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 6th Pay Commission. The Government consequent upon the revision of scale of pay of Government servant based on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 6th Pay Commission revised the pay ranges of the Government servant for eligibility for allotment of Government Public Works Department residential quarters in Tod Hunter Nagar and other places in Chennai city and the ceiling limit insofar as the Public Works Department quarters at Tod Hunter Nagar, was fixed at Rs.14,050/-. 10. To decide the issue involved in this writ petition, the only controversy is with effect from what date G.O.Ms.No.429, dated 18.08.1999, should be given effect to. 10. To decide the issue involved in this writ petition, the only controversy is with effect from what date G.O.Ms.No.429, dated 18.08.1999, should be given effect to. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.429, does not specifically say that it is with prospective effect or in other words it is from the date of issue of the order. Therefore, it has to be seen as to what would be the exact date from which the Government Order should be given effect to. To decide the issue, it has to be seen as to under what circumstances, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.429, and revised the ceiling limit. The answer lies in the Government Order itself, the revision of the ceiling limit was consequent upon the revision of scale of pay of the Government servants based on the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 6th Pay Commission. 11. Admittedly, the Government granted higher scales of pay accepting the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission with retrospective effect i.e., with effect from 01.01.1996. This fact is not in dispute. Therefore, if the Government had revised the ceiling limit for eligibility for Government quarters based on the revision of scale of pay, it has to necessarily follow that the revision of ceiling limit for Government quarters shall also take effect from 01.01.1996. If such interpreting is not given, then the revision of ceiling limit as done in G.O.Ms.No.429, cannot operate in tandem with revision of pay scales with effect from 01.01.1996 and would cause irreparable hardship to such of those persons, who have availed the Government accommodation in Tod Hunter Nagar and whose pay scales were revised. Furthermore, if G.O.Ms.No.429, is not given effect to from the date of revision of pay scales i.e., 01.01.1996, the very object behind revision of ceiling limit for Government accommodation would be lost. That apart, when the Government did the previous revision in G.O.Ms.No.995, dated 09.05.1990, the Government rightly gave effect to the said Government Order with effect from 27.06.1989, which being the date on which, revised scales of pay were announced accepting the recommendations of the Tamil Nadu 5th Pay Commission. Therefore, for all purposes G.O.Ms.No.429, shall be operative with effect from 01.01.1996. 12. Therefore, for all purposes G.O.Ms.No.429, shall be operative with effect from 01.01.1996. 12. Having rendered such a finding, if the facts on hand are looked into, then the petitioner cannot be stated to have crossed the ceiling limit, since the ceiling has been increased to Rs.14,050/- and the petitioner would be well within such ceiling limit and there was no cause available for the first respondent to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises. Even assuming that the petitioner was hit by rigour/ceiling limit, penal rent cannot be recovered from the petitioner. Penal rent is recoverable, only when the Government servant continues in occupation of the Government quarter beyond the permissible limit. It may arise in cases, where the Government servant has been either dismissed or removed from service, yet continues to squat in the Government quarters or when a Government servant is transferred to another station and refuses to vacate the quarter allotted in the first place of posting. Even in such of those cases, a minimum time period of about three months is granted to enable the occupant to find alternate accommodation or to seek for accommodation in the transferred place. Therefore, if the petitioner is to be called upon to vacate the premises, since his basic pay was increased, then the respondent ought to have offered alternate accommodation to the petitioner and granted reasonable time, so as to enable the petitioner to seek for alternate Government accommodation commensurate with his scale of pay. However, this was also not done. 13. In any event, the petitioner cannot be treated as a unauthorised occupant of a Government quarter, since in the order of allotment vide G.O.Ms.No.1128, dated 03.06.1987, does not prescribe any such condition. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned demand is wholly illegal. 14. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent is quashed and withheld amount of the petitioner's pay revision arrears shall be disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.