JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J. - Through the instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing letter/memo dated September 29, 2005 (Annexure P-18) issued by respondent No.4; for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to make payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of Teachers Welfare Scheme and Teachers Welfare Fund and Rs. 46,000/- on account of arrears of pay of petitioner's husband alongwith interest; for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on account of delayed payment of arrears of pension/pensionary benefits from the date they were due till date of actual payment as well as sought stay of operation of letter/memo dated September 29, 2005 (Annexure P-18) and recovery of amount of Rs 3,54,125/-. 2. Vide order dated March 09, 2007, case was admitted for hearing and the impugned order was stayed till pendency of instant petition. 3. Petitioner is w/o late Dr. Surinder Pal Singh who was working as Senior Soil Chemist in the Department of Soils, Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana since January 27, 1978. Husband of petitioner died during service on August 29, 2000 leaving behind his wife, minor daughter, sister Gurinder Kaur and mother Gurdial Kaur. At that time, he was occupying house No.10/33 allotted in his name on June 24, 1999. On September 01, 2000, University authorities sealed the said house as per orders of Vice Chancellor. Petitioner alongwith her minor daughter were granted legal heir certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana on November 02, 2000. The same was submitted on November 05, 2000 with Estate Officer, PAU, Ludhiana, but despite that, she was not allowed to enter the house in question whereas as per University Rules, family of a deceased employee is provided free accommodation for one year from the date of death of the employee. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that Gurinder Kaur, married sister of petitioner's husband had filed a suit for permanent injunction on September 13, 2000 on the basis of an unregistered Will for restraining the University to release any amount in the shape of GP Fund, Gratuity, Pensionary benefits to petitioner and her minor daughter, wherein the court issued an ex-parte status quo order to the University. 5. 5. Petitioner wrote letters dated February 28, 2001 and June 14, 2001 to the Vice Chancellor, requesting him to hand over the belongings of her husband to her or to shift the same to some common place and in this way, she can be spared from penal rent deductions. 6. Vide letter dated June 20, 2001, petitioner and her sister-inlaw Gurinder Kaur were asked to be present at House No.10/33, PAU Campus on July 06, 2001 so that articles lying in the house can be shifted at a safe place till decision in the aforesaid civil suit. On July 06, 2001 petitioner was present at the given place but Gurinder Kaur sent a legal notice that as per order of the court, said house cannot be opened because of status-quo order. 7. Meantime, Registrar, PAU, Ludhiana filed a petition under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 against petitioner, Gurinder Kaur and Gurdial Kaur (mother of petitioner's husband) for their eviction from the premises and for realization of licence fee at normal rate w.e.f. August 29, 2000 to August 28, 2001 and damages w.e.f. August 29, 2001 onwards till its vacation i.e. Rs. 10,000/- per month plus electricity & water charges for unauthorised use and occupation of the said house alongwith cost of the suit. In pursuance to the aforesaid petition, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated January 24, 2003 to petitioner & others which was duly replied by the petitioner vide her letter dated February 03, 2003. Petitioner received another notice from the respondent No.2 for hearing of suit on March 20, 2003 and to produce all evidence in support of her case. Vide order dated April 08, 2003, respondent No.2 accepted the petition filed by respondent No.3 and directed the petitioner, Gurinder Kaur and Gurdial Kaur to deliver the vacant possession of the house within 30 days and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,93,660/- as damages/rent and penal rent on account of alleged unauthorised occupation. 8. Exparte status quo order issued by the civil court was vacated on June 09, 2003 except for payment of GP Fund, whereupon, petitioner wrote a letter dated August 18, 2003 to respondent No.1 that while releasing her family pension/ pensionary benefits, amount of Rs. 1,93,660/- as damages/rent and penal rent on account of alleged unauthorised occupation. 8. Exparte status quo order issued by the civil court was vacated on June 09, 2003 except for payment of GP Fund, whereupon, petitioner wrote a letter dated August 18, 2003 to respondent No.1 that while releasing her family pension/ pensionary benefits, amount of Rs. 1,93,660/- as a penal rent be not deducted from her as she is not responsible for any illegal retention or occupation of the house. On July 27, 2004, house in question was got vacated by Vice Chancellor and Estate Officer from Gurinder Kaur and she took away all the belongings of her husband in the absence of petitioner. Infact, Gurinder Kaur was in illegal and unauthorised possession of the house. 9. Petitioner filed CWP No.287 of 2003 before this Court for release of family pension and commutation of pension alongwith interest @ 18% PA, which was disposed of vide judgment dated January 13, 2003 with a direction to the University to take a final decision on legal notice dated November 13, 2001 within a period of three months by passing a well reasoned speaking order and in case petitioner is found entitled to any monetary benefit, same shall be released to her within a further period of one month. The order was not complied with. Petitioner filed Contempt of Court Petition No.1099 of 2004 wherein counsel for the respondents produced a copy of letter dated August 18, 2005 stating that payment on account of provisional family pension, DCRG, leave encashment and ex-gratia grant has been released to the petitioner and nothing remains due. Accordingly, COCP was disposed of and rule discharged. However, an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- on account of Teacher's Welfare Scheme & Teachers Welfare Fund, and Rs. 46,000/- are still due towards arrears of pay alongwith interest @ 18% on delayed payment of pensionary benefits. But, petitioner received impugned letter dated September 29, 2005 from respondent No.4 wherein respondent authority has sent a bill for Rs. 3,54,125/- on account of rent and penal rent for House No.10/33 from June 24, 1999 to July 29, 2004 for effecting recovery from pensionary benefits of petitioner's husband. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order is liable to be quashed being illegal, unlawful, unjust and uncalled. 3,54,125/- on account of rent and penal rent for House No.10/33 from June 24, 1999 to July 29, 2004 for effecting recovery from pensionary benefits of petitioner's husband. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order is liable to be quashed being illegal, unlawful, unjust and uncalled. Immediately, after the death of her husband, petitioner requested the authorities to vacate the house by shifting the belongings lying in the house to some other place/store so as to avoid the payment of penal rent. Petitioner was not using/occupying the house nor created any obstruction before the University authorities for vacation of the same. Moreover, respondents have delayed the payment of pensionary benefits, for which, she is entitled to with interest. Status-quo order was vacated on June 09, 2003 by the civil court. Even, respondents did not comply order dated January 13, 2003 of this Court and respondents withheld the amount for more than 2 years. As such, she is entitled to interest @ 18% of the delayed amount of pensionary benefits from the date it became due till actual payment. Not only this, respondents have illegally, unlawfully and without any justification have withheld an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- due on account of Teachers Welfare Scheme & Teachers Welfare Fund and an amount of Rs. 46,000/- towards arrears of pay alongwith interest. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 has contended that instant petition is liable to be dismissed stating that petitioner has received all the pensionary benefits of deceased Dr. S.P. Singh who was working as Senior Soil Chemist and was allotted House No.10/33 in the premises of University Campus. After his death, petitioner locked the house in question. Vide registered letter dated June 20, 2001 respondents informed the petitioner to remain present in the house on July 06, 2001 at 10:00 AM so that lock is opened and belongings are transferred to some other safe place but neither she came present nor the University authorities were allowed to open the lock and shift the belongings to some other safe place. Ultimately, on initiation of vacation proceedings, Estate Officer cum- Chief Engineer directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of House No.10/33 and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,93,660/- within 30 days on account of licence fee and penal rent. Petitioner never challenged this order in any competent court nor made the payment. Ultimately, on initiation of vacation proceedings, Estate Officer cum- Chief Engineer directed the petitioner to deliver the possession of House No.10/33 and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,93,660/- within 30 days on account of licence fee and penal rent. Petitioner never challenged this order in any competent court nor made the payment. Accordingly, she is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,54,125/- on account of licence fee and penal rent. 12. Moreover, writ petition is not legally maintainable qua respondent No.6 which is an association of employees who have floated some scheme for the welfare of the employees or their wards which is purely privately managed association and the University or the Government has nothing to do with it. Thus, it does not come within the definition of "State" and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 13. This Court has given a deep thought to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available but finds legal force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. It has not been disputed by the respondents that family of a deceased employee is provided free accommodation for one year from the date of death of the employee. Admittedly, husband of petitioner expired on August 29, 2000 and at that time, he was occupying House No.10/33 allotted in his name. Respondents have failed to establish that petitioner was not legally wedded wife of Dr. Surinder Pal Singh. Moreover, she produced legal heir certificate dated November 02, 2000 and wrote letters dated February 28, 2001 and June 14, 2001 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) to Vice Chancellor requesting him to hand over the belongings of her husband or to shift the same to some other safe place but no action was taken in this regard. Neither she was allowed to enter the house nor was she allowed to shift the belongings of her husband. Moreover, vide Memo No. EO.So 2001/11020-22 dated June 20, 2001 issued by respondent No.2 to petitioner and Gurinder Kaur, it was admitted that as per legal heir certificate, petitioner had been declared the legal heir of late Dr. S.P. Singh. Therefore, petitioner and Gurinder Kaur were asked to be present at House No.10/33, PAU Campus on July 06, 2001 so that belongings of house can be shifted at a safe place. S.P. Singh. Therefore, petitioner and Gurinder Kaur were asked to be present at House No.10/33, PAU Campus on July 06, 2001 so that belongings of house can be shifted at a safe place. But, on June 06, 2001 except petitioner, no one else came present. Dehors the fact that petitioner was legally wedded of Dr. Surinder Pal Singh and being a family member, was entitled to stay in the demised premises till August 29, 2001, neither she was allowed to enter the house nor belongings of her husband were handed over to her. 15. Respondent No.3 filed a petition under the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 against petitioner, Gurinder Kaur and Gurdial Kaur for their eviction from the house in question and for realisation of license fee at normal rate w.e.f. August 29, 2000 to August 28, 2001 and damages w.e.f. August 29, 2001 onwards till vacation of house i.e. Rs. 10,000/- per month plus electricity and water charges for unauthorised use and occupation of said premises. In pursuance of said petition, respondent No.2 Estate Officer issued a show cause notice dated January 24, 2003 to petitioner, Gurinder Kaur and Gurdial Kaur as to why an order of their eviction from the said premises be not made and why the rate of damage claimed by the University be not considered reasonable to be paid by them. Petitioner filed a reply dated February 03, 2003 to the show cause notice as well as to eviction petition taking the pleas that she is not liable to pay license fee to PAU because she never got the possession nor she ever remained in occupation of the house after the death of her husband. In fact, she had been requesting the PAU authorities time and again to open the seal of house so that belongings may be shifted to some other safe place till the final decision of court in the suit filed by Gurinder Kaur. Moreover, she also attended the court in person on March 20, 2003 and produced all the relevant documents alongwith letters written by her to the University authorities to vacate the house in question or shift the belongings to some store as well as detailed reply filed by her in response to the eviction petition filed by respondent No.3. Moreover, she also attended the court in person on March 20, 2003 and produced all the relevant documents alongwith letters written by her to the University authorities to vacate the house in question or shift the belongings to some store as well as detailed reply filed by her in response to the eviction petition filed by respondent No.3. But, respondent No.2 Estate Officer ignored all these facts and vide order dated April 08, 2003 directed petitioner, Gurinder Kaur to deliver the possession of the house within 30 days and to pay the amount of Rs. 1,93,660/- as damages/rent and penal rent on account of alleged unauthorised occupation. Ex parte status quo order was vacated on June 09, 2003 whereafter petitioner again wrote a letter dated August 18, 2003 to respondent No.1 that while releasing her family pension and other pensionary benefits, amount of Rs 1,93,660/- be not deducted from her as she is not at fault and she had been time & again writing to the authorities to vacate the premises in question. Surprisingly, eviction order was passed against petitioner, Gurinder Kaur and Gurdial Kaur but vide impugned order dated September 29, 2005 passed by respondent No.4, only petitioner was sent a bill for an amount of Rs. 3,54,125/- on account of licence fee and penal rent which is totally illegal, unlawful and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 16. As regards amount of Rs. 46,000/- on account of arrears of pay of petitioner's husband. Once impugned order has been set aside and if an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings, consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside, the respondents are directed to consider this aspect of the matter within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment and in case petitioner is found entitled, same shall be paid to her within a period of one month thereafter, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of instant petition till actual payment. 17. As far as withholding the amount of Rs. 17. As far as withholding the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- due on account of Teachers Welfare Scheme & Teachers Welfare Fund is concerned, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority through a representation which shall be dealt with in accordance with law and disposed of within a period of two months from the date of filing of same, by passing a speaking order. In the event of non-compliance, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 18. In the light of what has been discussed above, instant writ petition stands allowed. 19. No order as to costs.