SMT. ANGOORI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE GENERAL MANAGER (ENGINEERING), NORTHERN RAILWAY, THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTH RAILWAY AND THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER-IV, DRMS OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the Applicant is against the Respondents letters dated 12.08.2009 and 12.08.2011 to the extent of charging her penal rent/damage rent w.e.f. 01.04.1990 to 01.07.1998 amounting to Rs. 2,22,927/ - in respect of Railway Quarter No. T -71, Railway Colony, Rohtak. She has also got a grievance against the Respondents for not releasing the DCRG amount admissible to her after the death of husband. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant is the widow of late Shri Mokha, a Khalasi who was working with the Respondent -Railways. Lastly, he was posted in the Northern Railway Station, Rohtak. He died while in service on 07.02.1989. Immediately after his death, Applicant sought appointment on compassionate grounds. She has also applied for family pension and other retrial benefits. However, the Respondents insisted that she should produce the succession certificate to claim the aforesaid benefits. During his service period, the Applicant's husband was allotted Railway Quarter No. T -71 at Railway Colony, Rohtak. After his death, the Applicant made representations on 08.01.1990 and 29.12.1990 for retention of the said Railway Quarter till the payment of family pension is finalized and her request for appointment on compassionate ground is considered. However, the Respondents neither took any decision on them nor rejected her request. Thereafter, the Applicant was granted family pension except Gratuity vide PPO dated 01.07.1997, i.e., after 8 years of the death of the husband of the Applicant. Later on, she was also given appointment on compassionate grounds as Water Woman vide Respondent's letter dated 02.07.1998. After joining duty in terms of the aforesaid order, she requested the Respondents to deduct her House Rent Allowance (RA for short) as she was residing in the aforesaid accommodation allotted to her late husband. The Applicant has also submitted that so far the Respondents have neither cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid accommodation nor she was given any notice for eviction. As a result, she was continuing in the aforesaid Railway Quarter on the basis of the representation which was pending consideration before the Competent Authority. However, vide order dated 06.08.2007, the Respondents passed an order for recovery of Rs. 7,80,092/ - as damage rent for the aforesaid period from 08.02.1989 to 31.05.2007. The Respondents have also started deducting the penal rent of Rs. 1359/ - from the pay of the Applicant every month.

(2.) THE Applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 674/2008 seeking stay on the recovery of the damage rent from the Applicant's pay. According to the Applicant, even though interim direction was there not to recover damage rent from the Applicant's pay, the Respondents continued recover it from the Applicant's pay. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 25.02.2009 with a direction to the Respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order with regard to fixing of rent on the aforesaid quarter and the recovery of damage rent from the Applicant's pay. This Tribunal has also observed that the entire period between 07.02.1989 to 31.05.2007, as referred to in the Respondents Notice for recovery and damage rent, cannot be treated as unauthorized occupation. The Tribunal has considered that when an employee dies while in service for some period the family can retain the said accommodation on payment of normal rent and then on enhanced rate. Further, if the quarter is retained only then the question of payment of damage rent arises. Again, when the Applicant has been given appointment on compassionate grounds, the date from which she was appointed the Quarter should have been regularized in her name and only normal rent can be recovered. The relevant part of the said order reads as under: -

(3.) NORMAL Rent