ANIMA BISWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the applications, the respective applicants have challenged common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. The applicants are mother and son, and filed applications, OA No. 64 of 2001 (Anima Biswas)and OA No. 65 of 2003 (Partha ). The learned Tribunal did not grant relief as asked for by the respective applicants. The short fact of these cases is as follows:

(2.) ANIMA is the wife and Partha is the son of late M. R. Biswas, (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) who at the time of death was Senior personnel Officer, (R. P.) at Garden Reach, Calcutta, in South Eastern railway. The said deceased died-in-harness on 27th December, 2000. Prior to his posting at Garden Reach, he was in Kharagpur under the same Railway and was occupying Railway Quarter No. 765 VHF Colony South Side kharagpur befitting to his official position. Despite his transfer to Garden reach the said deceased along with his son and wife continued to occupy the same quarter. After his death Anima made a representation to respondent no. 3, the Chief Personnel Officer, Garden Reach, Calcutta and prayed for post facto sanction for allotment of the same quarter even after transfer, in the name other deceased husband so that release of payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (hereinafter in short DCRG) is not affected. In her representation she requested for retention of quarter for a period of two years from the date of death of her husband in accordance with Rail Board's circular dated 17th August, 1999. On considering the representation the divisional Manager South Eastern Railway Kharagpur granted post-facto sanction of the competent authority for retention of quarter from 10th january 1995 to 26th December, 2000 on payment of normal rent. However, permission to remain in the said quarter after death was given for a period of two months only, beyond 26th December, 2000 at normal rent.

(3.) PARTHA on death of his father was appointed on compassionate ground as a Switch Board Attendant, Grade III at Kharagpur and he applied as per railway Board Circular dated 11th August, 1992 which enables the deceased employee's son to occupy the same Railway accommodation allotted to his father on out of turn basis, provided he fulfils conditions mentioned in the said circular. He and his mother continued to occupy, purportedly on the strength of the said circular, the same quarter of Type IV, as such he did not draw any house-rent allowance. Subsequently the said quarter was bifurcated into two parts that is 765/1 and 765/2 and therefore the quarter occupied by the said deceased became Type II Quarter which according to board's Circular could and can be occupied by Partha as a Grade III employee as contended by them. Undivided quarter of 765 was of Grade IV type which was meant for Class I officer and as such under stipulation of the Board's circular he was not entitled to occupy the said quarter. Partha justifies his occupation of the said quarter citing instance that another employee Sri harmit Singh Sohanpal who occupied his father's same quarter in the similar circumstances. Therefore, Anima wanted to occupy the quarter for a period of two years after the death of her husband and wanted immediate release of all DCRG, while Partha claimed for regularisation of his occupation of the quarter which had hitherto been occupied by his father. Both the applications are opposed by the respondent Railway. The learned Tribunal after considering all aspects of the matter passed an order directing the railway authorities to allow the family to occupy the said quarter for two years after death of the said deceased on realisation of normal charges and beyond this period Railway authority was given liberty to charge special and/or damage rent as per rules, till it is finally vacated by the family. The learned Tribunal thereafter directed release of DCRG within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order or three months after the actual eviction of the said quarter by the said family after adjustment of any pending dues on account of house rent from the said amount. Therefore it is clear that reliefs claimed by both the applicants have got the same origin and/or source of the facts and circumstances.