Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Krishna Nath Chaturvedi and Others

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—By means of instant writ petition, the Petitioner (Union of India) has sought for quashing of the judgment & order dated 19.2.2010, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Krishna Nath Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors. Original Application No. 80 of 2007

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the opposite party Krishna Nath Chaturvedi is a Goods Driver in Railways. While posted at Lucknow, he was allotted residential quarter in Railway Colony, Alambagh, Lucknow. On 28.5.1999 he was transferred from Lucknow to Rae Bareli where no residential accommodation was allotted to him. He applied for retention of the said quarter at Lucknow and vide order dated 13.9.1999 the opposite party allowed to retain the quarter for the period 28.5.1999 to 27.7.1999 on normal rent and from 28.7.1999 to 27.1.2000 on double rent. The opposite party was transferred back to Lucknow on 07.2.2001. He submitted an application on 10.4.2001 before Respondent No. 2 for regularisation of his possession over the aforesaid quarter. However, no order was passed on the said application. After lapse of about four years, order dated 18.3.2005 was passed directing for realisation of penal rent from the opposite party w.e.f. 28.1.2000. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No. 1 filed O. A. No. 196 of 2005 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 12.9.2005 with the direction to the opposite party to make afresh representation within ten days and the same was to be decided within a period of two months and till then no recovery was to be made.

The opposite party No. 1 submitted a representation in pursuance of the order of Tribunal dated 12.9.2005 and the competent authority rejected the same by means of order dated 31.1.2006 by holding that under Rule possession could not be regularised in favour of opposite party No. 1 and he should handover the possession to the Administration, otherwise not only damage rent would be charged but also disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. The said order was communicated by means of letter dated 03.2.2006. The opposite party No. 1 in response to the said order informed the Authority that since his possession has not been regularised, he has vacated the quarter on 23.5.2006 which may be allotted to some other person. The Petitioner No. 3 issued an order dated 01.2.2007 by which he worked out a recovery of Rs. 2,26,247/-damage rent for unauthorised retention of quarter for the period 28.1.2000 to 05.05.2006 which was challenged by the opposite party No. 1 by way of filing Original Application No. 80 of 2007 before the learned Tribunal and the same was allowed vide judgment & order dated 19.2.2010 and order dated 01.2.2007 was set aside. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.

Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner (Union of India) is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the provisions of rules with regard to retention of the quarter and that the order dated 03.2.2006 cannot dilute the unauthorised period and will also not regularise the unauthorised period. Learned Tribunal also failed to consider that circular dated 06.06.2001 has no application with regard to the case of opposite party No. 1 as his permission was expired on 21.1.2000 and thereafter his allotment is deemed to be cancelled.

Further submission is that the learned Tribunal proceeded on an assumption that after expiry of the permissible retention period, the Administration was required to pass an order for cancellation of the allotment order, the view taken by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Tribunal, Allahabad Bench and on this score alone, the impugned judgment & order dated 19.2.2010 is liable to be quashed.

Learned Counsel also submitted that in the case of Wazir Chand v. Union of India and Ors., passed by apex court in Civil Appeal No. 5195-5197 of 1998 it has been observed that prayer of the Appellant cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Appellant having unauthorisedly occupied the Government quarter was liable to pay the penal rent in accordance with Rules.

We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

From perusal of the record, it is evident that Full Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Ram Pujan v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 (1) ATJ 540 considered the letter/circular of the Railway Board on 15.1.1990 and framed two questions which are as follows:

(a) Whether in respect of a railway employee in occupation of a railway accommodation a 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 before further retention of the accommodation can be considered as unauthorised and penal/damage rent can be levied or;

(b) Whether the retention of accommodation beyond the permissible period can automatically be considered as unauthorised without any specific order of cancellation of allotment and the penal/damage rent levied accordingly.

The Full Bench gave answer in paras 38 & 39 of the judgment which are being quoted as under:

In the light of the discussion herein above, our answer to the two questions formulated for our consideration in the reference order is as follows:

(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 unauthorised and penal/damage rent can be levied.

(b) Our answer is that retention of accommodation beyond the permissible period in view of the Railway Board''s circulars would be deemed to be unauthorised 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 Board''s circular.

We further hold that it would be open to the Railway Authorities to recover penal/damage rent by deducting the same from the salary of the Railway servant and it would not be necessary to take resort to proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. We also hold that resort to proceedings under the said Act is only an alternative procedure which does not debar recovery as per the provisions of the Railway Board''s circulars.

The answer given by the Full Bench is having binding effect upon the learned Single Member of the Tribunal and, thus, the impugned judgment & order is erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment & order dated 19.2.2010, passed by learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 80 of 2007 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to consider and decide the issue afresh in light of the answers given by Full Bench of learned Tribunal.