As per case facts, the Respondent, a Railway employee, was transferred multiple times but retained his original railway quarter at Jamalpur, citing his daughter's education. Despite initial permissions, his continued ... retention was deemed unauthorized, and significant damage rent was levied. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) quashed these orders, prompting the petitioners to file a Writ Petition. The question arose whether Jamalpur or Malda should be considered the 'previous place of posting' for retention rules, and if the damage rent calculation was valid under Railway Board circulars, including provisions for the COVID-19 period. Finally, the High Court modified the CAT's order, ruling that the previous place of posting was Malda, not Jamalpur. It directed petitioners to charge penal rent at double the flat rate for a specific period of retention (from respondent's joining at Rail Wheel Plant, Bela until a certain date) instead of damage rent, while upholding damage rent for an earlier period of unauthorized occupation. The court noted the respondent's impending superannuation.