UNION OF INDIA Vs. A M ATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these Petitions, Union of India is challenging the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.949 of 1999 and in O.A. No. 511 of 2000. Since facts in both these Petitions are more or less identical, these two Petitions are being disposed of by common order.

(2.) BOTH the respondents in these writ petitions were working in Railways. Respondent in Writ Petition No. 1528 of 2001 retired on 28/2/1997 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1538/2001 retired on 31/3/1997. As per the existing Rules, a retired employee was permitted to retain the accommodation for a period of three months on payment of normal rent and, thereafter, he was liable to pay double the normal rent.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondents at length. The relevant rule which is reproduced in ground (f) of both the petitions clearly stipulates that the show-cause notice should be issued to the retired employees before disallowing the pass. It is an admitted position that no such notice was given. The Tribunal has set aside the decision of the Railway Authorities only from 2001 and 2000 respectively. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said order especially when no show-cause notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondents before passing the impugned order disallowing the pass. We would like to clarify that we are passing this order on the ground of non-issuance of notice to the respondents and the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal is not applicable in all cases is kept open and which may be agitated in an appropriate case. With this clarification, we do not see any merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The Writ Petitions are, therefore, accordingly dismissed. Rule in both the Writ Petitions stands discharged.