UNION OF INDIA Vs. SACHIDA NAND PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in O.A. No.390 of 2004 (Sachida Nand Prasad Srivastava Vs. The Union of India and another), whereby the original application preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed, and a sum of Rs.64,699.82p sought to be realised from him on account of unauthorised occupation of quarter, has been quashed.

(2.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. The applicant was, at the relevant point of time, posted as Chief Ticket Inspector at Sonepur. He was in authorised occupation of railway Type- II quarter No.T/42 at Sonepur. On 20.5.1999, he was transferred from Sonepur to Muzaffarpur. According to the Departmental Rules, he was entitled to occupy the quarter for a period of two months from the date of transfer on payment of usual rent. The respondent did not vacate the quarter at Sonepur on expiry of two months, and instead submitted his representation dated 21.6.1999, requesting therein that he may be allowed to retain the quarter at Sonepur. The authorities replied by their communication dated 9.7.1999, calling upon the employee to furnish the details of his joining at Muzaffarpur and also about the academic sessions of his children. The employee never replied to the same leading to the order dated 25.3.2003, whereby he has been treated to be in an unauthorised occupation of the quarter at Sonepur from 20.7.1999 to 11.9.2002, and he has been charged penal rent quantified at Rs.64,699.82p. by the said order dated 25.3.2003. The learned Tribunal has allowed the original application, and set aside the order dated 25.3.2003, on the ground that the authorities did not pass formal order disposing of the petitioners representation for extension of stay and no show-cause notice was issued before the order dated 25.3.2003 was passed.

(3.) We disagree with the order of the learned Tribunal because the authorities did send their communication dated 9.7.1999, calling the employee to furnish relevant details indicated therein. The employee did not respond to the same and merrily continued in occupation of the quarter at Sonepur. Secondly, the authorities did pass the order dated 25.3.2003, which by necessary implication means that the petitioners representation for continued occupation of the Government accommodation has been rejected, and the amount of penal rent has been quantified. 4. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the order of the learned Tribunal dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure-1), is hereby set aside, and that of the authorities of 25.3.2003 is restored. The amount of penal rent shall be recovered, if not already recovered, in twelve monthly instalments from the post-retirement benefits admissible to the employee and/or family pension. We were minded to allow the department to realise the amount with interest. We, however, refrain from doing so because the employee has already superannuated on 30.11.2002.