High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Union Of India And Others v. Central Aminstrative Tribunal And Another - WRIT - A No. 4059 of 2005  RD-AH 7163 (18 April 2007)
Court No. 10
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4059 of 2005
Union of India and others
Central Administrative Tribunal and another
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This writ petition arises out of the order dated 16.9.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") allowing Original Application No. 1275 of 2002 filed by respondent no. 2 issuing following direction to the petitioners:-
"(i) Regularize the quarter in question in the name of his second son from the date he has applied for quarter after completing his training.
(ii) Refund the DCRG amount already adjusted against the damage rent.
(iii) Pay the interest to the applicant at the rate of 9% per annum for commutation value of Rs. 34,523/- which has been paid to him on 1.12.1998.
(iv) Pay other retiral benefits in accordance with Rules."
The respondent no. 2, Brij Bihari Prasad was working as Feeder Grade-I, and, after declaring him medically unfit he was discharged from railway service on 17.4.1992. While in service the respondent no. 2 was allotted Railway Quarter No. 329 I.J. Type II, Loco Colony, Mughalsarai in 1985 whereat he was residing till his retirement. His elder son Akhilesh Kumar was also a railway employee working as Khalasi under Chief Controller (TR) South Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai who had applied for co-allotment of the aforesaid quarter in his favour with his father. His representationd dated 11.7.1991, 8.12.1992 and 9.10.1995 were pending and were not decided. His second son was also appointed as Assistant Booking Clerk on 16.11.1992 and he also applied for allotment of the aforesaid quarter just after his appointment on 4.3.1994. As per rules, it is not disputed that the type of the quarter which was being occupied by the respondent no. 2, his second son was also entitled for the same. He had also mentioned in his application that he may be allotted the said residential accommodation out of turn since he is sharing the said accommodation with his father. The petitioners, after about more than three years, on 3.7.1996, allotted aforesaid quarter to the second son of the respondent no. 2. However, the respondent no. 2 was served with notices dated 3.9.1996 and 19.11.1996 for depositing Rs. 18500/- after deducting Rs. 28,380/- from his death-cum-retirement gratuity (hereinafter referred to as "DCRG") as damage rent for occupying the aforesaid quarter after his retirement till it was allotted to the second son. The respondent no. 2 represented against the aforesaid notices and when no decision was taken, preferred Original Application No. 1137 of 1997 which was disposed of on 15.2.2002 directing the authorities to decide his representation by a reasoned order. Subsequently, the said representation was rejected by the authorities vide order dated 24.3.2002 whereafter the respondent no. 2 filed the aforesaid original application which has been allowed vide impugned order.
The Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent no. 2 observing that the amount of DCRG could not have been withheld or adjusted against any dues relying on the Apex Court judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Madan Mohan Prasad, JT 2002 (Supple.) 1 SC 65 and therefore, the action of the petitioners in deducting amount of DCRG towards the alleged damage rent has been held illegal.
Learned counsel for the petition could not show any provision under which the said amount could have been deducted and therefore, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has further found that allotment of the quarter in question to the respondent no. 2's second son on 3.7.1996 after keeping his application pending since 1992 was apparently arbitrary and no justification was provided by the petitioners for not permitting the said allotment from the date the said accommodation was liable to be vacated by respondent no. 2 since he and his two sons, both were railway employees, and were sharing the said accommodation and it is also not the case of the petitioners that they were charging house rent allowance separately. We, therefore, do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.