Ashok Kumar vs The Central Administrative Tribunal and Others

Mahesh Grover, J.—The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P17) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter described as `the C.A.T.'') by which the application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is working as Assistant Station Master in Northern Railway since September,1987 and as a consequence of his service, he was given a residential quarter at Bathinda and on his transfer to Bathinda Cantt., which was at a distance of about 7 Kms., was entitled to retain the same.

The principal reason for the claim of the petitioner is Rule 8.4 incorporated in the Railway''s Master Circular No. 49, which is extracted hereunder:

An employee posted at a station in the electrified suburban area of a railway may on transfer to another station in the same electrified suburban area be permitted to retain the railway quarters at the former station on payment of normal rent/ flat rate of license fee/ rent, provided

(i)The railway administration is satisfied and certifies that the concerned employee can conveniently commute from the former station to the new station for performance of duty without loss of efficiency and

(ii) The employee is not required to reside in an earmarked railway quarter.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being an employee posted at a railway station in the same electrified suburban area, he was entitled to retain the quarter at Bathinda after his posting at Bathinda Cantt. He further contended that the decision to withdraw the allotment of the railway quarter from the petitioner was discriminatory as one of the employees, namely, Shri Arun Kumar Gagneja, Station Master, Kartarsinghwala has been allowed to retain official residence No. T-150 at Bathinda even though he is not posted at Bathinda or Bathinda Cantt. Reference was also made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the earlier proceedings before the C.A.T. wherein the following observations were made in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the order dated 7.8.2008:

We have also perused Railway Board Master Circular No. 49 and Clause 10.4 of this Circular provides that an employee posted at a station in the electrified suburban area of a Railway may on transfer to another station in the same electrified suburban area, be permitted to retain the Railway quarters at the former station on payment of normal rent/ flat rate of license fee subject to certain conditions. However, respondents have submitted that Bathinda and Bathinda Cantt. do not fall in an electrified suburban area. Respondents have also produced a certificate (Annexure R/2) certifying that Bathinda Cantt. Railway Station falls outside limits of Municipal Corporation, Bathinda.

Respondents have produced photocopy of noting from which it is revealed that the case of the applicant for retention of official accommodation was dealt with by Sr. DOM/UMB. It has further been seen that applicant''s representation was sent to Sr. DEN/C and rules were also made available in July, 2007 which refer to Master Circular No. 49. It has further been mentioned in the noting that in the case of BTIC, only six quarters of Type II are available and 13 ASMs are at present posted at BTIC. The station does not have any private accommodation available and the staff has no other option but to live at BTI and commute from there if they are not housed at BITC. It was recommended that a policy decision at divisional/HQ level needs to betaken keeping in view the peculiarities of BTIC station surrounded by army area on all sides. It was further suggested that the retention of quarters are constructed at BTI by the Staff may be permitted till sufficient number of quarters are constructed at BTIC itself. From the above, it is evident that Railway Department wanted to allow the applicant to retain official accommodation while recommending construction of more staff quarters. Moreover, the applicant in his MA has claimed that it is a pooled accommodation, which is not earmarked to any employee. The respondents were required to issue show cause notice to the applicant before making recovery of penal rent from his salary which they have not done which is violative of principles of natural justice. This, it will be in the interest of justice, to direct the respondents to examine the matter afresh after giving personal hearing to the applicant.

On the strength of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner was entitled to retain the residential quarter while being posted at Bathinda Cantt.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length, but are unable to persuade ourselves to accept his contentions for the simple reason that he has failed to show to this Court any rule which provides that a railway employee, who has been transferred to an area which is not an electrified suburban of the main town, is also entitled to retain the official quarter. It is the conceded case of the petitioner before this Court that Bathinda Cantt. is not a suburban area of Bathinda and both Bathinda and Bathinda Cantt. do not form the same municipal limits nor are they electrified suburban areas of the railways. As such, the rule upon which reliance has been placed is of no assistance to the petitioner.

On a perusal of the impugned order, it also transpires that earlier observations of the C.A.T. quoted above, were made on a wrong assumption that Bathinda and Bathinda Cantt. formed the same municipal limits which impression was erased on account of the material produced before the C.A.T. at the time of passing the impugned order. Therefore, the overt emphasis made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the earlier observations does not merit acceptance as Bathinda and Bathinda Cantt. not being the part of the same municipal limits are clearly outside the purview of Rule 8.4 contained in Master''s Circular No. 49 and upon which reliance has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to enhance his case.

Unable to find any rule which would bring the peculiar predicament of the petitioner into its ambit, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 9.9.2009, Annexure P17. Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.