Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Lakhanlal Rawat vs Union Of India on 10 September, 2015
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.949 of 2013
Jabalpur, this Thursday, the 10th day of September, 2015
SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Lakhanlal Rawat, S/o Late R.L. Rawat, Aged about 83 years
R/o Veer Saveerkar Ward, in front of Gomti Nagar, Itwa Bazar,
Bina, District-Sagar 470001 (M.P.) -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.K. Nandy)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through its General Manager, North Central Railway
Allahabad 211002 (U.P.)
2. Divisional Railway Manager (P) North Central Railway
Jhansi 284001 (U.P.)
3. Divisional Railway Manager (P) West Central Railway
Bhopal 462001 (M.P.) -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Swapnil Ganguly for respondents Nos.1 & 2
Shri Vijay Tripathi for respondent No.3)
(Date of reserving the order: 08.09.2015)
O R D E R
By filing this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
8(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the respondents for its kind perusal; 8(ii) Quash and set aside the order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure A/1);
8(iii) Direct the respondents to restore the complementary basis withheld amount of DCRG along with interest; 8(iv) Further direct the respondents to restore the pay of the applicant as per the appellate authoritys order modifying the punishment to Censure and further to grant proper fixation to the applicant. 8(v) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.
8(vi) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant retired from railway service on 31.3.1985 on attaining the age of superannuation. However, he did not vacate the railway quarter upto 28.6.1997. Hence, his amount of gratuity was withheld and order for recovery of damage rent of Rs.2,24,879/- was passed by the Estate Officer against the applicant on 26.2.2004. This order was challenged by the applicant before the Additional District Judge Khurai Sagar, by filing Civil Case No.26A/2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.9.2004. Against the order of Additional District Judge Khurai, the applicant filed Civil Revision No.494/2006, before the Honble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which was decided on 18.1.2010 (Annexure A-3) giving relief to the applicant from recovery of damage rent. The applicant thereafter approached the respondents for release of DCRG amount as well as issuance of passes which had been withheld during this period. The applicant has also sought relief of refixation of his pay and thereafter pension on the ground that punishment of withholding of increment imposed on him in 1982 was reduced to that of censure by the appellate authority and, therefore, applicants pay was required to be refixed. The applicant filed Original Application No.292/2011 before this Tribunal, in regard to these reliefs, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure A-6) with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh representation for settlement of his outstanding dues for which he is lawfully entitled. In consequence of the said order the applicant filed representation, which has been decided by impugned order dated 14.3.2013(Annexure A-1), wherein it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.31,086.30 is to be recovered from him on account of normal rent of the accommodation occupied by him for 147 months and its electricity bills for this period, and, therefore, after adjusting the withheld DCRG amount of Rs.15,097.50, Rs.15,988.80 is still to be recovered from him. In regard to applicants demand for refixation of pay and pension, and issuance of railway passes, the respondents have mentioned in their order that since punishment order has not been set aside by the Honble Court, these reliefs are not payable to the applicant.
3. On the other hand the respondents have submitted in their reply that Honble High Court in its order dated 18.1.2010 (Annexure A-3) passed in Civil Revision No.494/2006 has simply held that damages for the period from 1.4.1985 to 29.6.1997 on account of illegal occupation of quarter were irrecoverable in proceedings initiated on 22.5.2003. No other direction has been given in this order. Thus, the respondents have rightly issued orders for recovery of Rs.31,086.30p from the applicant, which is on account of licence fee at normal rate for occupation of railway quarter, for 147 months and electricity bill of Rs.8404/- for the same period. The issue of unauthorised occupation of railway quarter has been established in the findings of the Estate Officer. Thereafter Additional District Judge, Khurai also recorded a finding in paragraph 14 of the order to the effect that applicant has been in illegal occupation of the premises for the period from 1.4.1985 to 29.6.1997. These findings of Estate Officer, as well as Additional District Judge have not been disturbed by the Honble High Court. Thus, applicant was liable to pay licence fee at normal rate for this period of illegal occupation and for electricity consumed by him during this period. In regard to refixation of retiral benefits, the respondents have submitted that the grievance is barred by limitation. The railway passes could not be granted to the applicant as he was illegally occupying the railway accommodation and case regarding recovery of damage rent was pending against him before the courts.
4. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
5. It is established that the applicant occupied the railway accommodation upto 29.6.1997. Therefore, there is no illegality in recovery of normal rent as well as electricity bill from the applicant for the said period. As regards to applicants prayer for refixation of his pay he has filed copies of his application filed before the Pension Adalat No.5 DRMs office Jhansi in 1993, in which he has mentioned that vide punishment order dated 12.11.1982 a punishment of reduction to a lower stage of Rs.600/- from Rs.640/- in the pay scale of Rs.425-640 for a period of two years was imposed on him. This punishment was reduced to censure by order dated 13.9.1984 of DRM, Jhansi. Therefore, his pay and pension deserve to refixed and he is entitled to be paid arrears for it. The respondents have not submitted anything to controvert on this issue. Therefore, if the effect of appellate authoritys order, as claimed by the applicant, has not been accounted for in applicants pay fixation and thereafter fixation of his pension, then the respondents should revise his pay and pension as per rules. However, the applicant shall not be entitled to get any arrears of pay on account of such refixation as it is barred by limitation. However, he shall be entitled to get arrears of pension, if any, on account of modification made in his pension entitlement. The applicants prayer regarding grant of railway passes is also allowed as apparently there is no reason now for the respondent to deny this facility to the applicant.
6. Thus, the Original Application is partly allowed. No costs.
(G.P.Singhal) Administrative Member rkv 4 Sub: pensionary benefits OA No.949/2013
Page 4 of 4