Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Mathura Sarju vs The Divisional Railway Manager And Ors. on 9 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)SLJ388(CAT)
ORDER S.L. Jain, Member (J)
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for directions/orders to the respondents to pay monthly pension along with arrears and interest at the rate of 18% on the accumulated pension till the date of full payment, to pay the DCRG amount with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and to issue the yearly complementary free passes as per eligibility of the applicant with immediate effect.
2. The applicant Mathura Sarju who was working as Shunter/Driver in Bandra Marshalling Yard of Western Railway, Mumbai which is under the Administrative control of the Divisional Railway Manager, Mumbai Central Division, Mumbai No. 8 belongs to the Mechanical Department and controlled by the Mechanical Officers in the Divisional office. The applicant, Mathura Sarju during his service period was allotted Railway Quarter No. 122/A Type-II at Santacruz (East) Mumbai and he was residing there with his family. He sought voluntary retirement after completion of 30 years on 15.9.1985. The said quarter No. 122/A Santacruz (E) Mumbai was regularised in the name of his son Ram Raj M. who was sharing the accommodation and working as Furnaceman T. No. 3081 in the Smith Shop, Parel Carriage Workshop, Western Railway, Mumbai which is under the charge of Chief Works Manager, Parel Workshop, Western Railway, Mumbai vide order No. E58/ CW/2 Vol. II dated 16.6.1986 (Annexure-'A-2'). Thereafter, the said Shri Ram Raj M. was allotted Qr. No. 113-A, Santacruz (E), Mumbai as a change over from Type-II Qr. No. 122/ A at Santacruz (E), Mumbai vide Chief Works Manager's Office letter No. E58/CW/2 Vol. IV dated 5.12.1994. Rent was recovered from the said Ram Raj w.e.f. 1.10.1985 (Annexure--'A-4').
3. The applicant was not paid after his retirement his gratuity amount. He was getting pension vide P.P.O. No. BCT/PEN/789/6/85/24 dated 22.1.1986 (Annexure-'A-5'). The said pension was revised vide order dated 6.6.1988 (Annexure-'A-6'). He was receiving his pension through the State Bank of India, Sagra Sunderpur (A/C. No. 2329) Dist. Pratapgarh, U.P. A/C. No. 89/43073. The Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Mumbai Central issued a letter to the Branch Manager of the above referred Branch for recovery from the relief on pension vide his letter No. BCT/PEN/E/RFR/226 dated 29.4.1997 (Annexure 'A-1') and also a letter to the Bank not to pay relief on the pension. In the result, the Bank has stopped the complete payment of monthly pension since June, 1997 onwards. Prior to it he was getting monthly pension of Rs. 2069/-.
4. The applicant claims that complete non-payment of monthly pension is arbitrary, illegal and irregular act. He approached the Bank and Railway Offices. Thereafter served Advocate's notice dt. 16.12.1997 (Annexure-'A-8') followed by another Advocate's noticed dt. 23.10.1999.
5. In the result the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer had issued a letter dated 1.11.1999 to Sr. Accounts Officer, Divisional Office, Mumbai Division to advise the action taken in this respect directly to the applicant and the Sr. Accounts Officer has to advise the applicant as well as the Chief Accounts Officer as to what action has been taken in this respect. Even though the matter is not settled. Hence, this O.A. for the aforesaid reliefs.
6. The claim is resisted by the respondents on the ground that the application suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that the office of DRM vide letter dated 13.8.1986 had advised ACME/PL's Office that Shri Ram Raj M. is not eligible for regularisation of quarter as per rules as his father Mathura Sarju had voluntarily retired from Railway service and the Memorandum dated 4.6.1986 is treated as cancelled. Accordingly, ACME/PL's Office issued a Memorandum No. E58/CW/2 Vol. II dated 1.9.1986. The applicant submitted a representation dated 11.9.1996 against the said Memorandum dated 1.9.1986 to which he was advised vide letter No. E. 58/CW/2 Vol. II dated 8.10.1986 to vacate the Railway Quarter immediately and hand over the possession to IOW STC with a copy to Ram Raj M. In the Housing Committee held on 15.11.1994 Ram Raj M. was allotted a Type-II Qr. No. 113-A at STC (E) vide Memorandum dated 5.12.1994 as change over as per his application dated 13.8.1993. He vacated the Type-II Qr. No. 122-A at STC (E) on 4.2.1995. Ram Raj M. is still in occupation of Qr. No. 113/A at STC(E), not paid HRA since 31.5.1983 and rent for the said quarter is also deducted from his salary w.e.f. 1985. Revised Memorandum dated 13.8.1986 regarding cancellation of the allotment of Rail way Quarter in the name of Ram Raj M. is also issued with a copy to ACME/PL for necessary action but no action was taken by the said authority. Due to non-vacation of the Railway Quarter, the full DCRG amounting to Rs. 23,487.75 was kept in deposit, released and adjusted vide letter No. E/L/789/9/85/8474 dated 24.10.1996 against the total recovery of Rs. 86,356/-(Rent Rs. 78,426/- and Electric charges Rs. 7,930/-). Hence, the question of paying the DCRG does not arise. However, Rs. 62,869/- is to be recovered from his relief on pension and hence Sr. DAO BCT had advised the concerned Bank to recovery the same from his relief on pension and not from pension. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the O.A. along with cost.
7. Respondent No. 4 has filed the separate written statement admitting the fact that the applicant had opened a Saving Bank A/C No. 2329 in their branch at Sagra Sunderpur Branch, Pratapgarh, U.P. on 10.9.1985. The applicant was drawing his pension. The amount received by the Bank from Railway authority was regularly credited in his A/C. No. 2329 and the applicant had withdrawn different amounts on different dates from the said account whenever needed. The last withdrawal was on 7.7.1997 for Rs. 2000/-. Thereafter, the applicant never turned to withdraw any amount from the said account and was never refused the payment by the Bank as alleged by him. They have received the letter from the Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Western Railway, Mumbai Central dated 29.4.1997 with a direction that a sum of Rs. 62,869/- is to recovered from the pensioner's account and the same be remitted to Railway authority against the outstanding dues of the applicant (Annexure-'A-1'). On receipt of the aforesaid letter dated 29.4.1997 the Respondent No.4 had informed the Railway authorities that the desired amount was not in credit balance of (he applicant and requested for further instruction but the same was not received. As such, no recovery could be made from pensioner's account. The pension amount of the applicant is regularly being credited in his account. The applicant's Advocate's notice was replied on 20.12.1999. The Bank has acted only as an agent of Railway Department and is compelled to comply with the instructions of paying authority. Hence prayed for dismissal of O.A. in his respect.
8. The Qr. No. 122/A Santacruz (E), Mumbai was regularised in the name of the applicant's son Ram Raj M. vide order dated 16.6.1986 vide office order No. E58/CW/2 Vol. II (Annexure-'A-2'). The said quarter thereafter cannot be deemed to be in occupation/possession of the applicant. It is true that vide subsequent letter dated 13.8.1986 the said regularisation was cancelled. Even after cancellation of the said regularisation, which was in favour of Ram Raj M., the respondents i.e. the Housing Committee meeting held on 15.11.1994 allotted a Type-II Qr. No. 113/A at STC (E) vide Memorandum dated 5.12.1994 as change over as per his application dated 13.8.1993. Thereafter, the said quarter No. 122/A at STC (E) was vacated on 4.2.1995. Keeping all these facts in mind, it can be safely concluded that even in meeting held 6n 15.11.1994 the respondents allowed the change to Ram Raj M. while there was a cancellation of allotment on 13.8.1986. It was neither at the instance of the applicant nor at his consent. If the respondents have acted negligently, the applicant cannot be held liable for which he was not a party to said meeting.
9. The respondents have sent the copy of the letter to ACME/PL for necessary action in compliance of the cancellation of the allotment of Railway quarter to Ram Raj M. Even as per averment of the respondents no action was taken by ACME. The applicant cannot be held responsible for an in action on the part of the officers of the respondents.
10. We have to examine the matter with respect to accountability/liability/duty of the applicant to hand over the possession of the said Quarter No. 122-A to the respondents. I am of the considered opinion that as soon as the said quarter was allotted/regularised in the name of Ram Raj M., the liability/responsibility/duty of the applicant seizes in respect of handing over of possession of the said quarter w.e.f. 15.9.1985. It is worth mentioning that though the said regularisation was cancelled vide order dated 4.6.1986 but the respondents have failed to take possession of the said quarter from Ram Raj M. and also received the rent w.e.f. 1.10.85 from Ram Raj M. even after cancellation and even thereafter after allowed the change over, received the rent and did not pay the H.R.A.
11. It is not that the applicant was handed over the possession of the said quarter after cancellation of regularisation in favour of Ram Raj M. After the respondents have regularised thequarter in favour of Ram Raj M. and even after cancellation of regularisation Ram Raj M. continued in possession, the respondents failed to take the possession of the said quarter from the applicant. The applicant was never in possession after 1.10.1985 of the said quarter therefore he cannot be held liable to hand over possession of the said quarter or after change over to the newly allotted quarter to the respondents.
12. It is true that order dated 29.4.1997 is challenged by the applicant by filing O.A. on 22.2.2000. It is worth mentioning that the applicant continued his representation vide his Advocate's notice dated 16.12.1997, 23.10.1999 and thereafter steps are taken to ascertain the facts vide letter dated 1.11.1999 by the respondents' official but no result. No recovery has been made so far. Recovery as ordered is to be from Interim Relief on pension. There is imminent threat of recovery. As such, till whole recovery is not made, the cause of action continues in favour of the applicant. In the result, O.A. is not barred by time.
13. In the result, O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.4.1997 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are ordered to pay to the applicant the amount of DCRG along with interest @ 12%p.a. w.e.f. 16.12.1985 till actual payment is made, to pay to the applicant monthly pension without any deduction (the applicant shall not be entitled to any interest thereon), issue the yearly complimentary free passes as per eligibility and the costs of the petition amounting to Rs. 3,000/- within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.