RAM POOJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of us, namely the Administrative Member felt that there were divergence of views amongst various Benches in their decisions on the question whether retention of Railway Quarter after transfer, retirement etc. by the Railway, employees beyond the permissible/permitted period would be unauthorised occupation and whether prior to recovery of damage, rent for unauthorised occupation a notice cancelling the allotment is necessary or not. The learned Member felt that since a large number of cases filed by the Railway employees challenging the order for recovery of damage rent for unauthorised occupation of the railway quarter, are coining up, the matter be referred to a Larger Bench for a decision so that the same can be uniformly followed in ail similar cases. The following questions were formulated for decision by the Larger Bench,

(2.) The papers were placed before the Honourable Acting Chairman who nominated this Full Bench to hear and decide the points of reference mentioned above.

(3.) The facts, in brief, may be noted. The applicant was appointed initially as Lineman in the Northern Railway at Chunar. He was later transferred to Allahabad and was allotted Qr. No. 83-B in Railway Colony, No. 2 Subedarganj. On 9-12-1989 he Was transferred from Allahabad to Mirzapur where he was not provided with any government quarter. The applicant retained the quarter allotted to him at Allahabad. In the OA, it has been stated that the applicant made several representations for transfer from Mirzapur to Allahabad on the ground that he was a T.B. patient and there was no medical facility for the treatment of T.B. at Mirzapur. His request was, eventually acceded to and he was transferred back to Allahabad vide order dated 13-2-1993 Simultaneously, he was served with a notice dated 6-2-1993 stating that arrears of damage rent to the tune of Rs. 36,715/- towards quarter at Allahabad will be deducted from his salary. The said notice dated 6-2-1993 is under challenge in the OA on various grounds which would be referred to hereinafter. The respondents in their counter affidavit raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground of limitation On merits their case is that when a railway employee is transferred from one station to another, he can retain the accommodation provided to him in his earlier station of posting for a specified period only on payment or double the assessed rent or double the normal rent or 10% of emoluments which ever is higher. Their further case is that for retention beyond the permissible period, the railway employee is to obtain permission of the Competent Authority which can be granted only fer certain specific purpose like the education of the children or sickness of the employed or his family members The respondents have indicated that the Railway Board had issued Instructions vide circular dated 21-9-1989 that rent at the rate of Rs. 35/- per sq. meter of plinth area in respect of Type 'A' to Type 'D' quarters and at the rate of Rs. 16/- per sq mt. of the plinth area In respect of Type 'E' and above quarters shall be charged as damage rent from the employee who retained railway accommodation beyond the permissible limit. It has further been pleaded that retention of the railway accommodation by a railway employee on expiry of permissible/permitted period shall render the said occupation unauthorised end the allotment of the quarters shall automatically stand terminated and the employee would be required to pay damage rent in respect of the accommodation. Admittedly, the applicant after his transfer from Allahabad to Mirzapur, retained the quarter but did not seek permission to do so.