Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
M A P Khan vs Divisional Railway Manager on 17 November, 2022
Page 1 of 4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00081 /2018
This the 17th day of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J
M.A.P Khan, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Shri M.A Khan, Resident of 1/135,
Rashmi Khand, Sharda Nagar, Lucknow.
.....APPLICANT
By Advocate: Sri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA, through the General Manager, Northern Railway
Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
3. Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj,
Lucknow.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Construction, Northern Railway,
Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi.
5. The Senior Section Engineer, Electrical, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Ashutosh Pathak
O R D E R (ORAL)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
The applicant has claimed the following reliefs in the present O.A:
(a) To quash the impugned order dated 08.08.2017 alongwith other related advice(s) contained as Annexure No. A-1 to this O.A and release the amount wrongly deducted from the gratuity of the applicant in terms of the impugned orders alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of due till the actual date of payment with all consequential benefits.
(b) To refund the amount deducted towards demurrage rent in terms of order dated 08.08.2017 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of due till the actual date of payment with all consequential benefits.
(c) To release the interest @ 18% p.a on the payment made towards the DCRG from the date of due i.e. 31.12.2013 till the actual date of payment.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
(e) Cost of the present case.Page 2 of 4
Tersely put the case of the applicant is that the applicant was a railway employee who retired on 31.12.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement, applicant submitted an application for extension of retention of quarter for a period of 4 months by means of an application dated 03.12.2013. In terms thereof, the competent authority issued an order dated 27.01.2014 granting permission to retain the accommodation.
Since, the applicant was ailing, therefore, he submitted another application for further retention of the accommodation for a period of 4 months more which is permissible on the ground of illness under the rules. However, no order of extension for further retention of accommodation for a period of 4 more months was communicated to the applicant. Applicant vacated the house on 24.08.2014 well within the extended period of more 4 months for retention of the house.
Respondents charged demurrage rent and Outhouse rent for the period from 01.05.2014 to 28.08.2014 and deducted the amount of Rs. 85232/- from the gratuity of the applicant. Hence, this O.A. Respondents, inter-alia, pleaded that applicant was allowed to retain the quarter allotted to him for a period of 4 months after retirement i.e. upto 30.04.2014 on payment of normal rent vide order dated 27.01.2014. The permission was granted with clear stipulation that the retention of the quarter, without permission beyond above permitted time limit will be treated as unauthorized possession for which damage rent will be charged as per rules.
The applicant continued to stay in the railway accommodation unauthorizedly upto 24.08.2014 which is beyond the extended period. Applicant was permitted to occupy the aforesaid accommodation till 30.04.2014. It has been further averred that accordingly recovery amounting to Rs. 1016/- as normal rent for the period from 01.01.2014 to 30.04.2014 and damage rent amounting to Rs. 84216/- totaling to Rs. 85232/- has been recovered.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was sick, he was suffering from paralysis. Rule 10.19 of Master Circular no. 49 of the Railway Board on 'Allotment of Quarters and retention thereof on transfer etc.' provides for retention of non-ear-marked railway accommodation for a period of 4 months on payment of normal rent/flat rate of licence fee and the next four months on educational or sickness account on payment of special licence fee i.e. double the normal rent or double the flat rate of licence fee.
Applicant's counsel further submitted that applicant was suffering from paralysis. He could not move out of that house. The factum of paralysis sufferance of the applicant is admitted to the respondents. Respondents referred the matter of the applicant to SGPGI, Lucknow for treatment. Further submitted that respondents have charged outhouse rent also which was not in occupation of the applicant. Thus, alleged recovery order is illegal. However, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is ready to pay the rent as per rules provided under Section 10.19 of the Master Circular no. 49 of the Railway Board on 'Allotment of Quarters and retention thereof on transfer etc.' Page 3 of 4 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents countered the above submissions of the counsel for the applicant and urged that after 30.04.2014, applicant became unauthorized occupant of the house allotted to him so recovery for damage rent for the period from 01.05.2014 to 30.08.2014 is perfectly legal and justified.
However, learned counsel for the respondents conceded the fact that outhouse was not allotted to the applicant.
Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties.
From perusal of Annexure A-2 which is page 12 of the paper book, it is manifest that item No. 25 Outhouse has not been allotted to the applicant so recovery of rent with regard to outhouse is arbitrary and illegal.
The relevant portion of Rule 10.19 is reproduced herein below:
"10.19 Retirement
a) Railway employee on retirement, including voluntary retirees and those retired compulsorily, may be permitted to retain non-ear-marked railway accommodation for a period of 4 months on payment of normal rent/flat rate of licence fee and the next 4 months on educational or sickness account on payment of special licence fee i.e. double the normal rent or double the flat rate of licence fee. ........
b) Beyond the permitted/permissible period, however, no further extension will be allowed on any ground, whatsoever. Therefore, no request or representation on this score shall be entertained. For all occupations beyond the permitted period, therefore, immediate action should be taken to cancel the allotment, declare the occupation as unauthorized and initiate eviction proceedings, charging damage rent for the over stay."
c) In partial modification of provisions contained in Para 5 of Board's letter No. E(G) 2000 QR 1-23 dated 01.06.2001, (as per which cases of retirement on medical invalidation were treated at par with the cases of normal retirement) Board has decided that Railway employees who are retired on grounds of total medical incapacitation and in whose cases compassionate appointment of any of their family members is in process, may be allowed retention of Railway accommodation for the maximum period up to 2 years on normal rent from the date of retirement.
From the perusal of aforesaid Rule 10.19, it is evident that a railway employee on retirement, including voluntary retirees and those retired compulsorily, may be permitted to retain non-ear-marked railway accommodation for a period of 4 months on payment of normal rent/flat rate of licence fee and the next 4 months on educational or sickness account on payment of special licence fee i.e. double the normal rent or double the flat rate of licence fee. Further beyond the permitted/permissible period, however, no further extension will be allowed on any ground, whatsoever. Therefore, no request or representation on this score shall be entertained. For all occupations beyond the permitted period, therefore, immediate action should be taken to cancel the allotment, declare the occupation as unauthorized and initiate eviction proceedings, charging damage rent for the over stay.
Page 4 of 4Thus, from the above rules, it is evident that for all occupations beyond the permitted period, immediate action should be taken to cancel the allotment, declare the occupation as unauthorized and initiate eviction proceedings, charging damage rent for the over stay is provided.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondents neither cancelled the allotment of the applicant nor declared the occupation unauthorized nor initiated eviction proceedings, so respondents cannot claim damage rent for over stay. Applicant is liable for payment as per provisions provided in aforesaid Rule 10.19 (a).
Aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicant has substance as the respondents have not cancelled the allotment of the applicant nor declare him unauthorized occupant and applicant was suffering from paralysis. This fact is borne out from the facts available on record. Respondents cannot charge damage rent for the over stay.
Accordingly, O.A deserves to be partly allowed on the following terms:
(i) Rent charged and deducted for outhouse shall be returned back to the applicant.
(ii) Respondents can charge and deduct only the amount as provided in Rule 10.19 (a) which is double the normal rent of the house allotted to the applicant.
Respondents shall calculate the amount as per directions (i) and (ii) above within three weeks and after deducting remaining amount which has been recovered from the applicant shall be returned back to the applicant within a period of two months thereafter.
Miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, also stand disposed of.
There is no order as to costs.
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (J) RK