SYED AZHAR AHMED Vs. NORTHERN RAILWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 7.9.2006 issued by the respondents whereby a sum of Rs. 4,60,430/- was imposed on the petitioner towards damages/rent w.e.f 25.5.2004 to 31.7.2006.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition are that the petitioner is an employee of the Railway Protection Force under the respondent since 1982 and on 16.9.1996 he was posted at New Delhi and was allotted a Type III quarter bearing No. L-5, Delhi Sarai Rohilla Station Area, New Delhi on 1.5.1997. Thereafter he was transferred to the Railway Coach Factory at Kapurthala, Punjab but his family stayed back in Delhi in the said quarter and the petitioner sought to retain the said quarter for a period of one year. After making several representations, the respondent passed an order dated 7.9.2006 imposing a sum of Rs. 4,60,730/- as damages from rent to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner. After making a representation, the respondent again on 18.10.2006 passed an order that a sum of Rs. 6000/- would be deducted each month from the salary of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was again transferred to Delhi and consequently he vacated and handed over the physical possession of the said quarter on 19.11.2007 to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent on 23.1.2008 allotted the same quarter to the petitioner. However feeling aggrieved with the imposition of the huge amount of damages, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking quashing of the letter dated 7.9.2006.

(3.) Mr. Rajat Aneja, counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very outset submits that the respondent has not initiated any proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises Act for the recovery of damages in question. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in N.D. Thandani v. Arnavaz Rustom, 2004 1 SCC 656.