JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal is directed order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2013. 2. The appellant is an obedient soldier and working as C.T. Cook in C.I.S.F. since 1982 and was posted in 7th Battalion at Jaipur, and he was allotted residential accommodation, Quarter No.62 Type-A, C.I.S.F. Campus, Amber, Jaipur, where he was residing with his family. In administrative exigency, he was transferred from 7th Battalion, Jaipur to Chandigarh, vide order dated 10.7.2008, where he joined on 18.7.2008 and under the relevant Rules, Chapter 15 Government Quarters, one can retain Government Quarters on normal rent on transfer to a place outside the station for a period of two months. 3. However, he was re-transferred vide order dated 1.9.2008 to Amber, Jaipur, and he joined pursuant thereto on 4/5.9.2008, however, there was a change in his Battalion. Earlier he was in 7th Battalion and after he was transferred from Chandigarh back to Amber, Jaipur, he was posted in 8th Battalion. Creation of Battalions appears to be for effective administration and for good governance in the Army, but the fact remains that appellant, who was holding the post of C.T. Cook, residential quarter/government accommodation earlier allotted to him while he was in 7th Battalion, but after he was transferred, he was posted in 8th Battalion, the residential quarter which he officially retained he was eligible to retain at least for a period of two months in the meanwhile he was re-transferred vide order 1.9.2008, and posted in 8th Battalion and retained residential accommodation, the respondents considered his retention of residential accommodation after two months as unauthorised occupant and a letter was served for charging penal rent from the petitioner-appellant, vide order dated 14.7.2011, of Rs.1,12,297/- @ Rs.4506/- per month, which was challenged by the petitioner-appellant by filing of writ petition which came to be dismissed holding that as he was transferred vide order dated 10.7.2008 and was not eligible to retain Government accommodation and no error was committed by the respondents in charging the penal rent after the expiry of two months under the scheme of Rules. 4. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that as he was re-transferred vide order dated 1.9.2008 and he joined on 4/5.9.2008, merely because there was a change of posting from Battalion 7th to 8th, that will not non suit the claim of petitioner-appellant for retention of the Government accommodation of the category to which he was entitled for, and the decision of respondents in charging penal rent from the appellant holding that he was an unauthorised occupant, was arbitrary action and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This fact remained un-noticed by the learned Single Judge that he was transferred within a short period of 1-1/2 months vide order dated 1.9.2008, he was eligible to retain and could not be considered of holding the residential accommodation as an unauthorised occupant and be charged with the penal rent, and what has been observed by the learned Single Judge, requires interference of this court. 5. Counsel for the respondents, while supporting order of the learned Single Judge submits that the Government accommodation was allotted to the petitioner-appellant while he was a member of 7th Battalion, and after he was transferred from Chandigarh to Amber, Jaipur vide order dated 1.9.2008, he was posted in 8th Battalion, in the absence of any Government accommodation available according to his entitlement as a member of 8th Battalion, the Government accommodation which was allotted to him while he was a member of 7th Battalion, on account of change of Battalion he was rightly held to be an unauthorised occupant and penal rent has accordingly been charged and this what the learned Single Judge has considered, and order impugned does not call for any interference of this court. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. The facts are not in dispute that while the petitioner-appellant was a member of 7th Battalion, he was holding Government residential accommodation, Quarter No.62 Type-A, which was according to his entitlement and was transferred vide order dated 10.7.2008 where he joined on 18.7.2008, and within a span of 1-1/2 months he was re-transferred vide order dated 1.9.2008 to the same place i.e. Amber, Jaipur. The only objection of the respondents was that on re-transfer he was posted in 8th Battalion and there was no residential accommodation available for the members of 8th Battalion, as such his retention of residential accommodation while being member of 7th Battalion, after he was transferred and expiry of two months' period, he became an unauthorised occupant, in our considered view the action of the respondents was not sustainable for the reason that only change of Battalion will not non suit the claim of petitioner-appellant to continue in retaining the residential accommodation to which he was entitled for, and it is not the case of respondents that the residential accommodation allotted to him while he was a member of 7th Battalion, or on account of change on transfer to 8th Battalion his entitlement of residential accommodation also changes. Had that been so, he was re-transferred in a span of 1-1/2 months to the same place of posting i.e. Amber, Jaipur, vide order dated 1.9.2008, the residential accommodation which he was retaining as a member of 7th Battalion, and in our considered view even on transfer, Government accommodation could be retained for two months and during the period he was re-transferred to the same place, the action of respondents treating him to be an unauthorised occupant and charging penal rent from him under the order impugned dated 14.7.2011, was wholly unjustified and the learned Single Judge has not taken notice of the fact that within a short period of 1-1/2 months the petitioner was re-transferred vide order dated 1.9.2008 where he joined on 4/5.9.2008, and the residential accommodation allotted to him while he was a member of 7th Battalion, his entitlement will remain the same and mere change of Battalion from 7th to 8th, would not have non suited the petitioner-appellant in treating him to be an unauthorised occupant. 7. Consequently, in our considered view order of the learned Single Judge does not sustain in the eye of law. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2013 and order of the respondents dated 14.7.2011 charging penal rent from the petitioner-appellant, are hereby quashed and set aside, and if any recovery had been made, the respondents are directed to refund the same with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of two months. No cost.Petition Allowed. *******