Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
V.K. Gupta vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA 3442/2011 New Delhi this the 4th day of February, 2013 HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A) V.K. Gupta, (District and Sessions Judge, Retd.) Ex-Judicial Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, 81-R.P.S. Flats, Sheikh Sarai, Phase I, New Delhi Applicant (By Advocate Shri L.R. Khatana) VERSUS 1. Union of India Through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. Principal Chief Engineer, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. Senior DEN-cum-Estate Officer, Office of D.R.M., Northern Railway, Hazrat Ganj, Lucknow. 4. Railway Claims Tribunal, Through its Registrar, 3-B, Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj, Lucknow Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Brijesh Kumar Shukla) O R D E R (ORAL)
Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) This is the second round of litigation by the Applicant, Shri V.K. Gupta. Earlier, he had approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 3268/2010. He was aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2009, issued by the Divisional Engineer-I, Northern Railway, Lucknow, directing the Additional Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT for short), Lucknow to recover an amount of Rs.1,35,857/- from him as damage rent for the bungalow number 10-D, Dak Marg, BB 4/LKO allotted to him while he was working as Judical Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Lucknow because he was required to vacate the said bungalow by 31.01.2008 but retained it without any authority up to 30.06.2008.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Applicant joined as Member (Judicial) in the RCT, Lucknow, after his retirement as District and Sessions Judge from UP Judiciary, on 3.07.2006. He was allotted the house number 10-D, Dak Marg on 27.07.2006 and he occupied it from the same date. He resigned from the aforesaid post on 31.12.2007, on health grounds after having met with a very serious accident. However, the same was kept pending. He has, therefore, sought the permission of the Respondents, i.e., the General Manager, Northern Railway to permit him to retain the aforesaid house up to 30.06.2008. According to him, the General Manager gave him oral permission as conveyed to him by the Deputy General Manager working as Secretary to the General Manager. It has also been averred by him that the permission was conveyed telephonically to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager by the office of the General Manager. However, the Senior Divisional Manager, vide the impugned order dated 02.12.2009 informed the Additional Registrar, RCT, Lucknow that after the applicant had resigned from service, he was permitted to retain the aforesaid bungalow for a period of one month only, i.e., with effect from 31.12.2007 to 30.01.2008 on payment of normal rent. Thereafter, since he has not vacated the house and retained it without permission up to 30.06.2008, he is an unauthorised occupant during the period from 31.01.2008 to 30.06.2008. Accordingly, he was liable to pay the damage rent amounting to Rs.1,35,875/- and the Additional Registrar, RCT, Lucknow was also asked to recover the aforesaid amount from the Applicant.
3. The Applicant made representations against the aforesaid letter of the respondents on 6.04.2010, 08.04.2010 and 05.04.2010 to the Senior Divisional Engineer, to the General Manager, Northern Railway and to the Principal Chief Engineer, Northern Railway respectively. Reminders have also been sent to the aforesaid officials on 02.07.2010. Thereafter, the Applicant had approached this Tribunal by OA No.3268/2010 (supra) but the same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents, i.e., the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi to decide his representations by issuing a detailed and speaking order. It is pursuant to the aforesaid directions that the respondents have issued the impugned order dated 23.11.2010, according to which, the plea of the applicant that he met the then General Manager, Northern Railway seeking permission to retain the house up to 30.06.2008 and his contention that permission was given by the General Manager orally, was not acceptable. Further, according to them, as per the records, he after his resignation applied to the DRM/LKO for granting him permission to retain the house up to 30.06.2008 on account of his undergoing medical treatment in PGI/LKO. However, his request was specifically rejected by the DEN/LKO, vide his letter dated 29.04.2008, with the specific advice that since he has resigned from RCT, Lucknow on 31.12.2007, he could retain the Bungalow for a period of one month only, i.e., up to 30.01.2008 and thereafter no further extension will be allowed on any ground whatsoever. Thus, they justified their decision to charge Rs.1,35,857/- as damage rent for the period of alleged overstay of the accommodation.
4. The Respondents have filed their reply. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Brijesh Shukla has invited our attention to the Master Circular No. 49 regarding Allotment of Quarters and Retention thereof on Transfer by respondents which has been annexed as Annexure with their reply. Their contention is that according to para 8.20 of the said Circular, the Applicant cannot be allowed to retain the accommodation beyond the period of one month after his date of resignation from the service. The said paragraph reads as under:-
8.20 Resignation/dismissal/removal An employee who resigns from service or is dismissed or removed from service may be permitted to retain the railway quarter for a period of one month only on payment of normal rent/flat rate of licence fee.
He has also submitted that the Applicants resignation from service has already been accepted with retrospective effect from 31.12.2007 vide order dated 31.03.2009.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant, Shri L.R. Khatana and the learned counsel for the Respondents, Shri Brijesh Shukla. We have also perused the entire documents placed on record. It is seen that the applicant met with an accident on 18.02.2007 at Hyderabad. He was admitted to Karmineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and was discharged on 26.02.2007. After having been kept him in ICU in the said hospital for six days during which period he was in coma and in unconscious state, he was brought to Delhi by his family members and got treated there. Thereafter, he had rejoined duty in RCT, Lucknow on 26.03.2007. However, on developing further complications and on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, Eastern Railway, Lucknow, he got done another MRI of his brain on 05.04.2007 at the PGI, Lucknow. Ultimately, with no improvement in his condition, he had to submit his resignation from the post on 31.12.2007. Because of his ill health, he continued to remain in occupation of the Government accommodation up to 30.06.2008. However, it took 15 months for the respondents to act upon his resignation letter. It was only on 31.03.2009 the respondents have conveyed the ex-post-facto sanction of the President accepting his resignation with effect from 31.12.2007. Meanwhile, he has applied for the retention of the house up to 30.06.2008 and vacated it on the same date.
6. As stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner in this case. Every case has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of that case. The rule is to be applied in any case taking into account its facts and circumstances. It is not to be applied blindly and in a mechanical manner. In this case it is seen that the applicant unfortunately met with an accident at Hyderabad and he was undergoing medical treatment for a number of months. Since he was not able to recover from his disabilities caused on account of accident, he was forced to resign from the post on 31.12.2007. As observed earlier, it was only on 31.03.2009 that the President has accepted his resignation and conveyed the ex-post-facto approval of the same. It is a well settled position of law that till the resignation submitted by a Government servant is accepted by the competent authority, he shall deem to be in service till the date of acceptance of the resignation. Even though in this case the Applicants resignation has been accepted ex-post-facto by the President with effect from 31.12.2007, the fact is that he was kept waiting for the same till 31.03.2009. However, the Applicant very fairly, on his own vacated the accommodation on 30.06.2008, i.e., well before conveying the ex-post-facto acceptance of his resignation by the President vide order dated 31.03.2009.
7. We are, therefore, of the considered view that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents to charge the market/damage rent for the entire period from 31.01.2008 to 30.06.2008. Since the Applicant was admittedly on medical treatment during the period from 30.01.2008 to 30.06.2008 and the Respondent No.4 has accepted his resignation dated 31.12.2007 only on 31.03.2009, i.e., after a delay of 15 months, the competent authority of Respondents 1 to 3 shall allow him to retain the aforementioned accommodation for the aforesaid period on normal rent. Consequently, we quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 02.12.2009 imposing the damage rent of Rs.1,35,857/- upon the Applicant. We also quash and set aside the impugned speaking order of the respondents dated 15.03.2010 as the reasons given therein are quite unjustified and arbitrary. In the said circumstances, we hold that the impugned order dated 15.03.2010 issued by the RCT, Lucknow to the Applicant is of no significance. The Respondent 1 to 3 shall, therefore, send a revised bill to the Applicant for the period from 31.01.2008 to 30.06.2008 at normal rate and the same shall be paid by him within one month thereafter. If case any amount of money has already been recovered from the Applicant out of the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,35,857/- charged from him, the same shall be refunded to him forthwith after adjusting the normal rent as stated above. Both the parties shall comply with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period of time.
8. With the aforesaid directions, this OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEROGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh