JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.2 to 6 are represented by the learned Sr. counsel Mr. G.N. Sahewalla. 2. The predecessor of the respondents Jyotindra Kumar Deb Roy, hereinafter referred to as “the employee”, retired as a Foreman from the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) after reaching the age of superannuation on 31.10.1978, but the family retained possession of the allotted official quarter until 01.04.2007. Therefore, the regular and the penal rent for the period 01.11.1978 to 01.04.2007 was quantified at Rs.2,35,226/- and the said amount was ordered to be recovered from the dues of the employee, through the order dated 16.11.2007 (Annexure-5) issued by the Chief General Manager (D). 3. The decision to recover the rental dues was preceded by an eviction proceeding under the Assam Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Eviction Act”), wherein the Estate Officer of the ASEB on 07.03.2007 (Annexure-2) ordered for vacation of the ASEB’s quarter at Panpatty, Silchar, by the employee. The resultant appeal under Section 9 of the Eviction Act filed on behalf of the retired employee was dismissed by the District Magistrate, Silchar, on 27.03.2007 (Annexure-4). It may be noted that the successors of the employee had filed the Title Suit No.41/2008, where they claim the occupied quarter to be their personal property and on that basis the claim for rent made by the ASEB is resisted. But this suit is still pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Silchar. 4. Earlier an industrial dispute was raised by the employee for computation of his dues from the ASEB and although the application being Misc. Case No.10/1988, filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was initially dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar on 05.06.1992, on challenge made by the employee, the High Court in the Civil Rule No.2139/1992, ordered the matter to be reconsidered by the Industrial Tribunal and consequently the award was passed on 27.12.2005 in the Misc. Case No.14/2000 (Annexure-1). Under the award direction was given for payment of the service dues to the employee and family pension dues to his widow (after the employee’s death). Case No.14/2000 (Annexure-1). Under the award direction was given for payment of the service dues to the employee and family pension dues to his widow (after the employee’s death). In so far as the ASEB’s claim for damage for wrongful occupation of the quarter, the learned Tribunal declined to adjudicate this aspect of the matter and referred the employer to the appropriate remedy in law. 5. Because of the pendency of the civil suit, the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar, has passed the impugned order on 30.10.2008 (Annexure-6), whereby direction was issued to the ASEB, to deposit all the service and family pension dues of the employee and his family, without deduction of rent, from the accumulated service dues of the employee. 6. The learned counsel for the ASEB contends that since the ASEB quarter was unauthorisedly occupied for about 28 years from 1978 to 2007 even after retirement of the employee on 31.10.1978, the recovery of the rental dues is permitted by law. In support of this contention, Mr. Goswami refers to Rule 71 of the CCS (Pension) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Rules”). 7. On the other hand, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Sr. counsel submits that rental dues beyond 3 years is time barred and therefore no amount beyond 01.11.1981 as arrear rent, can be recovered by the employer. 8. The Supreme Court in Wazir Chand Vs. Union of India reported in (2001)6 SCC 596 has permitted the employer to levy penal rent for unauthorized occupation after superannuation and observed that penal rent can be adjusted against death cum retirement dues of the employee. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. Vs. V.U. Warrier reported in (2005)5 SCC 245 , where the Court approved the action of the employer in deducting penal rent from the gratuity dues of the employee. 9. In the present case, the quarter in question was occupied by the employee and his family for more than 28 years after superannuation of the employee on 31.10.1978 and this is nothing but unauthorized retention of the allotted quarter. Therefore, adjustment of the rental amount from the dues payable to the employee is contemplated under Rule 71 of the Pension Rules. Therefore, adjustment of the rental amount from the dues payable to the employee is contemplated under Rule 71 of the Pension Rules. The legality of adjustment of the recoverable dues from the payable dues of the retired employee is approved by the Supreme Court in V.U. Warrier (supra) and Wazir Chand (supra) and therefore it is apparent that restriction placed on the employer by the impugned order (Annexure-6) is not consistent with the law declared by the Apex Court. 10. In the above circumstances, while the Title Suit No.41/2008 is still to be decided, I am of the view that subject to the final decision of the Civil Court, the employer should be permitted to adjust the recoverable dues for the illegal retention of the quarter, from the payable dues of the employee and thus the contrary decision given by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner on 30.10.2008 (Annexure-6) is held to be unsustainable. But in view of the pending suit filed by the respondents, in the event the verdict goes in plaintiff’s favour, they will be entitled to consequential relief of refund of the rental amount adjusted against the dues of the employee. It is ordered accordingly. 11. With the above order, the case stands disposed of by leaving the parties to bear the cost of this proceeding.