RAGHVENDRA ANANTRAI MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which falls for consideration in this writ petition under Article 226 is whether the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, established under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (Act for short) is entitled for Higher Official Reservation (H. O. R.) facilities from the Indian Railways.

(2.) THE facts are simple and may be shortly stated. The petitioner was member of State Judiciary. He retired as District and Sessions Judge, Satara. Thereafter, he worked as the director, Judicial Officers Training Institute at Nagpur till 30th September, 1993. He is now appointed by the Central Government as the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai. The Appellate Tribunal is established with effect from 14th June, 1994 under section 8 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction over areas covered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, established or to be established under the Act. For the present, the Recovery Tribunals are functioning at Ahmedabad, Mangalore, Calcutta, Delhi and Jaipur. The petitioner is the only appellate authority for all these Tribunals.

(3.) IT seems that the petitioner claimed H. O. R. facilities by writing letters to the concerned authorities. By letter dated 7th April, 1995 the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) informed the Under Secretary (H. O. R.), Ministry of Railway in respect of the request of the petitioner about H. O. R. facilities and requested to make available to the petitioner H. O. R. booklet as requested by the petitioner. It seems that the request of the petitioner for H. O. R. facilities was declined by the Director, Traffic Commercial, Railway Board by his letter dated 30th August, 1995. The petitioner again wrote a letter dated 15th April, 1996 explaining how the petitioner was entitled to H. O. R. facilities by specifically pointing out Rule 8 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Presenting Officer) Rules, 1993 (Rules for short ). The petitioner pointed out that under Rule 8, the Presiding Officer is entitled to travelling allowances and other such facilities as applicable to the High Court Judges under the High Court Judges (Travelling Allowances) Rules, 1956. The Executive Director, Passenger Amenities, Railway Board, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner saying that H. O. R. facilities cannot be extended automatically to persons holding equivalent rank or drawing allowances at par. Aggrieved by the refusal to extend H. O. R. facilities, the petitioners has approached this Court by filing the present petition.