KRISHNA NATH CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Original Application was originally heard and decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 19th February, 2010, wherein the Tribunal after setting aside the order dated 1.2.2007, allowed the O.A. The respondents feeling aggrieved by the said order, preferred the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court vide Writ Petition No. 908 (SB) 2010 and the Hon'ble High Court decided the writ petition on 8.12.2010 whereby the impugned judgment and order dated 19.2.2010 passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 80/2007 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to consider and decide the issue afresh in light of the answer given by full bench of Tribunal. While deciding the writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court has taken cognizance of reference made to the Full Bench judgment in the case of Ram Pajan v. Union of India and Others,, 1996 (1) ATJ 540, wherein the full bench has considered the letter/circular of the Railway Board dated 15.1.1990 and answered two questions.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has pointed out that initially when the applicant was posted at Lucknow, he was allotted a quarter and subsequently he was promoted as Driver Goods and transferred to Raibareli. This order was passed on 28th May, 1999. Thereafter, in February, 2001, i.e. on 7.2.2001, the applicant came back to Lucknow and on 10.4.2001, he has made a request for regularization of his quarter which was in his occupation before his transfer to Raibareli. The respondents have not asked for vacation of the Railway quarter and only on 3.2.2006, the applicant was asked to vacate the said quarter. Prior to that, the respondents have imposed a penal rent vide order dated 18.3.2005 for which the applicant had preferred an O.A., which was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 12th September, 2005, in which it was directed to the respondents to consider his case for regularization of the residence at Lucknow. Apart from this, learned Counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that the Tribunal has clearly observed that after transferring back to Lucknow, no orders of cancellation of the allotment was issued by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that vide order dated 17.5.2006, he was asked to vacate the quarter and the said quarter was allotted to some other persons. Soon thereafter, the applicant vacated the quarter and by means of order dated 1.2.2007, the respondents have imposed the penal rent upon the applicant whereby the damage rent was claimed for different spells from 28.1.2000 to 5.5.2006. It is also pointed that when the applicant was posted at Raibareli, he was allowed to retain the said quarter on normal rent from 28.5.99 to 27.7.99 and thereafter from 28.7.99 to 27.1.2000 on double the licence fee. The learned Counsel has also pointed out that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law since as per the circular of the Railway Board dated 1.6.2001 which was not placed before the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the Writ Petition No. 908 (SB)/2010 and as per the said circular, the Railway Board has framed a guidelines regarding the retention of Railway Quarter on transfer, deputation, retirement etc.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.