Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Suresh Kumar Bareja vs Union Of India on 8 December, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 4320/2010 New Delhi, this the 8th day of December, 2011. HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Shri Suresh Kumar Bareja, Dy. Station Supdt./Comml. N.Railway, New Delhi. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri Malaya Chand) Versus 1. Union of India Through General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110002. 2. Sr. Divisional Engineer/Estate N.Railway, D.R.M.Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi. 3. Divisional Railway Manager N.Railway, D.R.M.Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi. Respondents. (By Advocates: Shri Rajinder Khatter) ORDER (ORAL)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged the order dated 08.07.2009 (page-16) which has been passed after the judgment given by this Tribunal in TA No.40/2008 which reads as under:
In supersession to this office letter vide reference (ii) above, it is intimated that allotment of Rly. Quarter No.177/A.I at Basant Lane/New Delhi was cancelled vide this office letter of even No.dt. 13.12.04 on account of unauthorized construction in the quarter.
The above said quarter has been vacated by Sh. Suresh Kumar on 31.10.05. As such the under noted charges/recoveries be made from the salary of above named employee if not already recovered under intimation to this office.
A RENT
(i) w.e.f. 12.8.97 to 30.6.99 Normal rent @ Rs.42/- p.m.
(ii) w.e.f. 1.7.99 to 31.3.01 Normal rent @ Rs.50/- p.m.
(iii) w.e.f. 1.4.01 to 30.6.04 Normal rent @ Rs.58/- p.m.
(iv) w.e.f. 1.7.04 to 13.12.04 Normal rent @ Rs.70/- p.m.
(v) w.e.f. 14.12.04 to 31.10.05 Damages rent @ Rs.132/- p.m. p.sqm. on 64.98 sqm (i.e. plinth area of quarter on 41.04 sqm + 23.94 sqm (Encroached area) B WATER CHARGES
1. w.e.f. 14.12.04 to 31.10.05 Rs.25.50 p.m. C CONSERVANCY CHARGES
1. w.e.f. 14.12.04 to 31.10.05 Rs.4 p.m. D ELECTRIC CHARGES
1. w.e.f. 12.8.97 to 31.10.05 To be intimated by SSE/Power Supply/N.Rly.Paharganj, New Delhi
2. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant had informed the authorities vide his letter dated 07.03.2005 (page-22) that his mother had expired in February 2005 whereafter the said temporary structure in question had been removed, therefore, the charges levelled in the show cause notice may be considered sympathetically and favourably yet in the impugned order, respondents have charged damage rent from him from 07.03.2005 to 31.05.2005 as well, therefore, the impugned order to this extent may be quashed and set aside.
3. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated that the applicant had approached this Tribunal earlier by filing TA No.40/2008 challenging the order dated 13.12.2004 whereby his allotment of Quarter No.177/A-1, Basant Lane was cancelled with a retrospective date, i.e. from 12.08.1997. Applicant had referred all the facts in the said OA also. After considering everything, this Tribunal had passed judgment dated 29.05.2009 giving liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders for the period from 14.12.2004 to 31.10.2005. The impugned order has thus been passed in compliance with the courts order. Moreover, applicant had filed Review Application No.244/2009, which too dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2009 (page-57). The applicant herein had filed Writ Petition No.476/2010 before the Honble High Court of Delhi wherein petitioner had specifically stated that he did not wish to challenge the impugned order dated 29.05.2009 passed by this Tribunal in TA No.40/2008. Therefore, now applicant cannot be allowed to challenge the order, which had been passed in compliance of the Tribunal order. The OA may, therefore, be dismissed.
4. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings also. Initially, the applicant was issued show cause notice dated 23.09.1997. Subsequently, order dated 13.12.2004 was passed whereby allotment of Quarter No.177/A-1, Basant Lane was cancelled with a retrospective date, i.e. from 12.08.1997 and other order was issued on 27.02.2006 for effecting recoveries from the applicant for the period from 12.08.1997 to 31.10.2005, the date when he had vacated the quarter. The letter, which has now been referred to, was also referred in para-3 thereof. After hearing both the counsel, it was observed in para-8 of the judgment that since the applicant had already been put on notice, respondents were well within their rights to cancel the allotment. To that extent, no fault was found with the order dated 13.12.2004. However, it was observed that the respondents could not have cancelled the allotment of Quarter No.177/A-1, Basant Lane with a retrospective date, i.e. from 12.08.1997 because cancellation could have been done only from prospective date. In view of above, it was observed as follows:
13.In the instant case, admittedly, the Railway Quarter was cancelled by the respondents on 13.12.2004, therefore, if applicant stayed in the Railway quarter in spite of cancellation of quarter beyond 13.12.2004, he would be liable to pay damages for the said period...
5. As far as the period prior to 13.12.2004 was concerned, it was observed that no damages could have been recovered from the applicant. The respondents were accordingly directed to issue fresh orders for the period from 14.12.2004 to 31.10.2005 as the applicant had already vacated the said quarter on 31.10.2005.
6. From the above, it is clear that the damages were to be paid for staying in the railway quarter in spite of cancellation of the quarter and not for erecting the structure. Cancellation of the said quarter was upheld by the Tribunal in judgment dated 29.05.2009. Applicant had, thereafter, filed RA No.244/2009, which too was rejected on 14.12.2009. However, liberty was given to him to challenge the order dated 08.07.2009, if he was aggrieved by the said order. Applicant did not stop there. He thereafter filed Writ Petition No.476/2010 before the Honble High Court of Delhi wherein it was specifically stated by the petitioner that he does not wish to challenge the impugned order dated 29.05.2009 passed by this Tribunal in TA No.40/2008. Meaning thereby that the order passed by this Tribunal was accepted by the applicant. The order, which is impugned now, had been passed in compliance of the order passed earlier in TA, therefore, we find no good ground to interfere with the case. The OA is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/kdr