Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Nawal Son Of Late Raj Bali vs Union Of India on 12 October, 2015
Reserved
(On 29.09.2015)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Dated: This the 12th day of October 2015
HONBLE DR. MURTAZA ALI, MEMBER J
Original Application No. 34 of 2012
Ram Nawal Son of Late Raj Bali, R/o Quarter No. 110-L New Colony Rail Gaun Subedarganj, District-Allahabad.
. . . Applicant
By Adv: Shri Saurabh Basu
V E R S U S
1. Union of India, through General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.) North Central Railway, Allahabad.
4. Finance Advisor & Account Officer (Adm) Account Officer Head Quarter, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
5. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Head Quarter, North Central Railway, Kanpur.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri Bashist Tiwari
O R D E R
By Honble Dr. Murtaza Ali, Member J The applicant has filed this O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking following reliefs:-
(i) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.) N.C. Railway, Allahabad (Respondent No.3) (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation No.I of this O.A.).
(ii) Directing the respondents to calculate and recover the Quarter rent amount in the 71 instalment at the rate of Rs. 117/- for the period 27.03.2000 to 17.07.2002 and refund the excess amount with interest as per bank rate to the applicant which has already been recovered from the salary of the applicant, With all consequential benefits.
(iii) Grant such other reliefs, as the applicant might be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Allow the Original Application with costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure No. A-2) which was reduced to reduction in same time scale by two stages for a period of two years without cumulative effect by the reviewing authority vide letter dated 21.09.2000 (Annexure No. A-3). The applicant was allowed duty and transferred to Allahabad from Kanpur. The applicant was not allotted any quarter in Allahabad and he requested respondent no. 5 for retention of the quarter in Kanpur till the allotment of quarter in Allahabad vide registered letter dated 10.05.2001. It is stated that after allotment of quarter in Allahabad, the applicant vacated the quarter in Kanpur and informed the respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 18.03.2002 (Annexure No. A-5). The applicant sent another application on 16.07.2002 informing them about vacation of quarter. The applicant finally vacated the quarter on 17.07.2002 but the recovery of Rs. 500/- per month was being made from the salary of the applicant. He requested to stop this recovery vide letter dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure No. A-7). The respondent no. 5 has recovered a total amount of Rs. 35,617/- from the salary of applicant @ Rs. 500/- per month instead of Rs. 117/- per month w.e.f. 27.03.2000 to 17.07.2002. The applicant submitted an appeal before the Divisional Engineer for cancellation of damage rent recovery and also sent representations but no action was taken.
3. The applicant filed O.A. No. 810 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2010 (Annexure A-14) and a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. The applicant filed fresh representation on 25.08.2010 and a reminder was also sent on 18.11.2010 for refunding the recovered amount as damage rent from the salary of applicant. The respondent No. 2 has rejected his representation vide impugned order dated 17.01.2011 (Annexure A-1).
4. In the counter reply filed on behalf of respondents, it has been submitted that after retirement, a railway employee can retain a railway accommodation for 4 months on payment of normal rent under para 14 of Railway Board Circular dated 15.01.1990 (Annexure CR- 1). The applicant was compulsory retired on 27.03.2000 and he did not vacate the railway quarter after expiry of 4 months and retained the railway quarter at Kanpur upto 16.07.2002. He is liable to pay damage rent after 4 months from the date of his retirement. The applicant had made a request for retention of quarter for the first time after a lapse of about 14 months from the date of his compulsory retirement and para 17 of Railway Board circular dated 15.01.1990 provides that the retention of a railway quarter after expiry of permissible period is to be treated as unauthorized. It has also been stated that the applicant had sent the keys of quarter along with an application on 15.03.2002 but the lock of the quarter could not be opened with those keys sent by the applicant. Thus, the keys were returned to the applicant and the quarter was finally vacated by the applicant on 17.07.2002.
5. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of applicant, it has been stated that the applicant, who was compulsory retired on 27.03.2000, was thereafter reinstated back in service vide order dated 21.09.2000. He was transferred from Kanpur to Allahabad, where he was not allotted any railway quarter and the applicant had no option but to retain railway quarter at Kanpur. The damage rent has been recovered from the salary of the applicant without giving him any opportunity of hearing.
6. Heard Shri Saurabh Basu counsel for the applicant and Shri Bashist Tiwari counsel for the respondents.
7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was compulsory retired on 27.3.2000 and later-on he was allowed duty and transferred to Allahabad vide order dated 21.09.2000. It is also an admitted fact that applicant retained his Railway quarter at Kanpur till 17.7.2002 and no permission was granted by the Competent Authority to retain the Railway quarter at Kanpur.
8. In the case of Ram Pujan Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1994-96 A.T. (Full Bench judgments) page 244, the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad has resolved the present controversy by giving replies to the questions posed before them in the following terms:-
(a) In respect of a railway employee in occupation of a railway accommodation, in our considered opinion, no specific order cancelling the allotment of accommodation on expiry of the permissible/permitted period of retention of the quarters on transfer, retirement or otherwise is necessary and further retention of the accommodation by the railway servant would be unauthorized and penal/damage rent can be levied.
(b) Our answer is that retention of accommodation beyond the permissible period in view of the Railway Boards Circulars would be deemed to be unauthorized occupation and there would be an automatic cancellation of an allotment and penal rent/damage can be levied according to the rates prescribed from time to time in the Railway Boards circular.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention on para 14 and para 17 of Railway Board Circular No. 1776 No.E(G 85QR 1/9) dated 15.1.1990 (Annexure CR-1) which read as under:-
14. Retirement:
A railway employee on retirement including voluntary retirees may be permitted to retain the railway accommodation for a period of 4 months on payment of normal rent/flat rate of licence fee/rent and the next 4 months on educational of sickness account on payment of special licence fee i.e., double the normal rent or double the flat rate of licence fee/rent. This is also applicable to audit staff doing railway audit work.
17. On expiry of the permissible/permitted period indicated in all the above cases, the allotment of quarter in the name of the employee at the old station will be deemed to have been terminated automatically. Retention of quarter by the employee after expiry of the permissible period will be treated as unauthorized. During the period of unauthorized occupation the employee should be required to pay damages rate of rent in respect of the railway quarter. Realization of damages rate of rent should not be pended on the ground that the employee has appealed or the case of the employee has been referred to the Ministry of Railways for regularization of the excess period of retention. If the appeal of the employee succeeds he will be allowed refund as due.
10. It has been submitted that the applicant was compulsory retired on 27.3.2000 and he could retain the railway quarter at Kanpur upto four months of his retirement i.e. till 27.7.2000 but he vacated the said quarter on 17.7.2002. In view of Railway Board Circular dated 15.1.1990 and Full Bench judgment delivered by this Tribunal in the case of Ram Pujan (supra), I am of the view that the applicant was an unauthorized occupant of Railway quarter just after four months of his retirement i.e. with effect from 27.7.2000. It is immaterial that the punishment of applicant was later-on reduced and he was allowed to join the service and transferred to Allahabad vide order dated 21.09.2000. It has clearly been provided in Ram Pujans case (supra) that there is no need to issue any specific order for cancelling the allotment of accommodation on expiry of permissible period of retention of quarter. It has further been held that retention of accommodation would be unauthorized and penal rent/damage can be levied according to rates prescribed from time to time in the Railway Board Circular. Mere preferring representations for extension of period of retention of quarter or rejoining the service does not entitle the railway servant to retain the said quarter as the allotment of said quarter is deemed automatically cancelled just after expiry of the permissible period. In the instant case, the applicant was unauthorized occupant just after expiry of permissible period of four months i.e. after 27.7.2000 and the railway is entitled to recover penal/damage rent for the unauthorized occupation of that quarter from the applicant under the Rules
11. In view of the above, I do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.1.2011. The O.A. is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Murtaza Ali) Member (J) Manish/-
Page 9 of 9