A M ATTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Guard in Central railway. The petitioner was allotted quarters at Byculla, Mumbai. The petitioner retired from services on 28-2-1997 on superannuation. Whilst petitioner was in service, the petitioner's son was appointed as a turner in the Central Railway, matunga Workshop, Mumbai in the year 1988. The son after his appointment was also residing with the petitioner with the permission of the Railway authorities, without claiming house rent from respondents. Before retirement of the petitioner, petitioner along with his son had made an application for transferring the quarter allotted to him in the name of his son. Similar request was made by the petitioner before his retirement by application dated 24-2-1997. The request was not considered. The petitioner's son was however, allotted independent premises. The petitioner was however, allowed to retain the premises till 30-6-1997 on the basis of rent and thereafter from 1-7-1997 to 30-10-1997 on medical grounds.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the Railway Authorities by communication dated 1-1-1998 intimated to petitioner's son that his application for transfer from father to son was sanctioned and that the Railway quarters situated at MGN No. RBII-7-30 was transferred in his name from 30-12-1997. The petitioner was occupying the quarter bearing No. RB-III (3) /2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the quarter allotted to his son was lower type premises and not equivalent to the Premises in occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner's son in the matter of his allotment of premises lower than his entitlement filed a petition being O. A. No. 968 of 1998 before the Central administrative Tribunal (C. A. T. ). That was rejected by order dated 10-12-1998. Aggrieved, his son preferred petition being W. P. No. 1526 of 1999. The Petition was dismissed by order dated 10-6-1999.

(3.) By letter dated 26-2-1998 (1-4-1998) the Senior Divisional Personnel office, C. S. T. informed the petitioner that though he had been retired on superannuation, he had been continuously in occupation of the quarter allotted to him from 1-11-1997. The petitioner was called upon to hand over the possession of the quarters within seven days and on failure to vacate the quarters, the case would be referred to the Estate Officer for eviction. Proceedings were thereafter initiated under the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act. The petitioner pursuant to notice remained present and submitted that higher type of quarters had been allotted to other officials, who were having lower pay scale and not eligible for allotment. That though his son was entitled as per revised pay scale for entitlement of transfer of quarters on father to son basis the same was not considered. By order dated 5-8-1998 the Estate Officer directed petitioner's eviction. The petitioner aggrieved preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 97 of 1998. On hearing the appeal the matter was remanded back to the Estate Officer. Consent terms came to be filed. Consent terms provided that the petitioner would vacate the suit premises latest by 1st week of July, 1999. In view of that respondents agreed to withdraw the entire proceedings and an order came to be passed accordingly. The petitioner in terms of the consent terms surrendered the premises on 31-7-1999.