Sri R. Nagaraj vs The Southern Railways and Others

R. Gururajan, J.—Petitioner is an ex-railway employee challenging the order of the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, Bangalore, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1998 on the following facts.

Petitioner an ex-railway employee was allotted a quarters bearing No. 19/H/Type I situated at SBC, BG Colony, Bangalore in the year 1991, the department initiated certain proceedings against the Petitioner with regard to certain charges against the Petitioner. Based on the report submitted by the Enquiring Authority the Company issued an order of dismissal by way of punishment. Petitioner has filed an appeal against the dismissal order before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore bench, same is pending.

In the meanwhile Respondent 2 issued a notice u/s 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 calling upon the Petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the quarters. Objections were filed by the Petitioner.

Thereafter an order came to be passed ordering eviction of the Petitioner from the quarters. The said order was challenged before the learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 1998. The learned Judge has dismissed the appeal. This order is questioned before me.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Petitioner''s Counsel says that the impugned order require my interference. According to the Petitioner no proper enquiry was conducted before ordering conviction. Counsel further says that an appeal is pending on the dismissal. Therefore, no order can be passed.

In the light of submission of the Petitioner I have carefully gone through the impugned order. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is in no longer in service with the Respondents, he has been dismissed for certain misconducts. Only after dismissal a notice came to be issued in terms of the Section 4(1) of the Act and was asked to submit explanation. The Petitioner did appear before the authorities. He also produced a letter dated 4.3.1998 as per annexure-B. In the said letter Petitioner states that he has preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal and therefore the proceedings before the said officer requires to be kept in abeyance. This defence has not been accepted either by the said officer or by the learned City Civil Judge. I am also of the view that the learned Judge is right in dismissing the appeal. The only defence of pending appeal is rightly rejected by the City Civil Judge. Quarters are allotted only to those who are in employment of railways. Once an employment ceases for any reason whatsoever right to stay in the quarters also get extinguished in the absence of any regulation/order permitting for extension to stay in the quarters. Pendency of a case before the appellate authority will not give any right to an employee to continue in the quarters notwithstanding his dismissal. The only defence of pending appeal is rightly rejected.

In the circumstances I do not find any good grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned City Civil Judge. Moreover as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge there are several employees who are standing in the queue to occupy the quarters which has fallen vacant on account of the dismissal of the Petitioner. Petitioner has failed to make any ground for my interference. Petition is rejected without being admitted.

The trial Judge has granted 2 months time for vacating and handing over possession to the Petitioner in his order dated 30.3.2001. The said 2 months is already over. In the circumstances taking into consideration the realities in a city like Bangalore, I deem it proper to grant time till 31.12.2001 subject to the Petitioner filing an undertaking before this Court agreeing to pay rentals regularly and further agreeing to handover possession without insisting on execution of the impugned order. If any such undertaking is given the time for eviction is till 31.12.2001. Time for filing undertaking is 3 weeks from today. If no such undertaking is filed by the Petitioner the concession of extension of time is not available to the Petitioner in terms of this order.

Ordered accordingly, No costs.