Devendra Kumar Bharadwaj vs General Manager N C Rly

Reserved on 13.07.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD
st
This the 31 day of August, 2026
Original Application No. 501of 2020

Present:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member-(Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member- (Administrative)
Devendra Kumar Bharadwaj, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Sri Har
Prasad Jha R/o Ρ.Μ.-52, Pitambara Nagar, J.D. Authority Colony,
Panchwati 284002.
…..Applicant
By Adv: Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), North Central Railway,
Jhansi.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Jhansi
. . . Respondents
By Adv: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
O R D E R

Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)

Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2.
The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant,
seeking following reliefs:
“(I) to issue an order or direction, thereby quash and set-aside the order dated
26.07.2019 (Annexure-1), dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure-20 and dated
20.02.2019 (Annexure-3) for deduction Rs.76,487/-in lieu of Damage/Penal
rent for the period from 18.03.2019 to 22.07.2019 form Death Cum
Retirement Gratuity or any other terminal benefits payable to the applicant in
respect of the Railway Quarter.

Page 1 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

(II) to issue an order or direction in the nature, thereby commanding the
respondents to sanction writ-off of damage rent recovered from the Applicant
for the period of 18.03.2019 to 22.07.2019 form Death Cum Retirement
Gratuity.
(III) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in facts and
circumstances of the case which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and
proper.
(IV) award the cost of the application favour of the applicant.”
3. The facts, as narrated by the applicant, are that the applicant was
initially appointed as Electrical Chargeman (now known as Junior
Engineer, Electrical) in Central Railway, Ajni, Nagpur, on 14.06.1985.
He was thereafter promoted and transferred to Jabalpur and
subsequently to Jhansi, where he was posted as Junior Engineer/Track
Machine. He also served on deputation with IRCON from 2006 to 2008
and thereafter was transferred to Jhansi on the post of Senior Section
.
Engineer (Track Machine), North Central Railway, Jhansi After
completing more than 32 years of regular service, the applicant applied
for voluntary retirement vide his application dated 21.09.2017. His
request was initially rejected vide order dated 13.11.2017, pursuant to
which the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.
70/2018. The Tribunal, vide order dated 09.03.2018, quashed the orders
passed by the respondents and directed them to reconsider his case for
voluntary retirement. In compliance thereof, the applicant was granted
voluntary retirement vide order dated 04.05.2018.
3.1 After his retirement, the applicant vide his application dated
17.07.2018, requested to retain Railway Quarter No. F-300 for some
more time on payment of normal rent. Again the applicant moved
another representation on 05.11.2018 for retention of Railway quarter
for another four months on double rent. His request for further
retention was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2018 and was directed to
vacate the quarter as the quarter was coming under the proposed area
of coach factory. The applicant ultimately vacated the quarter on
22.07.2019.
3.2 Again, a representation was moved by the applicant on
23.07.2019 stating therein the reasons for failing to vacate the quarter.
Page 2 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

Subsequently, the applicant was informed that the period from
18.11.2018 to 17.03.2019 would be charged at double rent and the period
from 18.03.2019 to 22.07.2019 would be treated as unauthorized
retention and damage rent would be recovered from his DCRG.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.76, 487/- was deducted from his DCRG
towards damage rent.
3.3 It is the contention of the applicant that his continued occupation
of the quarter was due to genuine and bona fide reasons, including his
ill health, the education of his sons. He also points out that the quarter
was situated in the proposed Coach Factory area and demolition of the
quarters commenced only in August 2019, whereas he had already
vacated the quarter on 22.07.2019. Thus, according to him, no loss was
caused to the Railway and there was no deliberate or unauthorized
occupation. The applicant again submitted representation dated
27.08.2019 followed by a reminder dated 31.10.2019 seeking
waiver/write-off of the damage rent, but the same were not considered.
He further contends that the deduction of Rs.76,487/- from his DCRG
towards damage rent was contrary to the applicable Railway rules. The
applicant has also relied upon the judgment of CAT Hyderabad Bench,
passed in OA No. 1314/2000 , wherein the applicant joined Railway
Claims Tribunal at Bhubneshwar and was allowed to retain quarter at
Vishakhapatnam too and the said OA was allowed. Feeling aggrieved
the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the instant Original
Application.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating
therein that the applicant was initially appointed as Apprentice
Electrical Charge Man under CPM/RE/Nagpur w.e.f. 14.06.1985 and
thereafter he was relieved from RE, project Bhopal to DRM (P) Central
Railway Jabalpur w.e.f. 20.03.1987 for further posting as trainee PW1
and subsequently on his own request, he was transferred to Jhansi
Division vide DRM (P) Jabalpur office order dated 06.11.1989 and
resumed his duty on 19.12.1989 in Jhansi Division. Thereafter, he
Page 3 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

remained on Deputation in IRCON w.e.f. 26.01.2006 to 01.04.2008 and
thereafter he was posted at Jhansi. The applicant then submitted a
request for voluntary retirement on 21.09.2017, which was initially
rejected by the respondents on 13.11.2017. As per the respondents, the
applicant submitted an application on 17.07.2018 to allow him to live in
quarter No.F-300 and vide letter dated 26.07.2018 he was granted
permission by the respondents to live in the quarter No.F-300 from
18.07.2018 to 17.11.2018 on normal rent and it was further mentioned
that the quarter may be vacated by 17.11.2018, otherwise from
18.11.2018 damage rent would be recovered from him. Thereafter, the
applicant again filed an application on 05.11.2018 for retention of
quarter for another four months on double rent. However, the same
was rejected vide letter dated 26.11.2018 and was directed to vacate the
quarter immediately. However, the quarter in question was vacated by
the applicant on 22.07.2019. Thereafter, the applicant was informed that
period from 18.11.2018 to 17.03.2019 would be charged on double rent
and remaining period from 18.03.2019 to 22.07.2019 would be charged
as damage rent from Death Cum Retirement Gratuity (DCRG).
4.1 Moreover, the respondents vide order dated 20.12.2019 informed
the applicant that his applications dated 27.08.2019 and 30.10.2019 with
regard to write-off the damage rent were not accepted as the maximum
extension for retention of railway quarter had already been granted to
him and due to unauthorized occupation of the railway quarter, action
has been taken against him as per rules. The respondents have also
appended relevant rules/letter dated 01.06.2001 with regard to
authorized occupation of quarter.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit reiterating his
averments.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for the parties have been heard
and records have been gone through.
Page 4 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

7. It is noted from the record that the applicant was allotted
Railway Quarter No. F-300 and upon his voluntary retirement, he was
permitted to retain the said quarter for four months from 18.07.2018 to
17.11.2018 on payment of normal rent. Thereafter, his subsequent
request for further retention was rejected vide order dated 26.11.2018
and he was directed to vacate the quarter. However, the applicant
continued to occupy the quarter and ultimately vacated it only on
22.07.2019. The applicant was informed that period from 18.11.2018 to
17.03.2019 would be charged on double rent and remaining period from
18.03.2019 to 22.07.2019 would be charged as damage rent.
8. The rules, as relied upon by the respondents, specifically provide
that a Railway employee, including a voluntary retiree, may retain
Railway accommodation for four months on payment of normal rent
and for a further period of four months on educational or sickness
grounds on payment of special licence fee/double rent. The rules
further make it clear that no further extension beyond the permissible
period is allowed on any ground and that occupation beyond such
period is to be treated as unauthorised, with damage rent being
recoverable for the period of overstay. The relevant portion of the said
letter of the Railway Board dated 01.06.2001 with regard to retention of
Railway quarter on transfer, deputation, retirement etc is quoted as
under:
5.Retirement:
5.1 Railway employees on retirement, including voluntary retirees and those
retired compulsorily, may be permitted to retain non-ear-marked Railway
accommodation for a period of 4 months on payment of normal rent/flat rate of
licence fee and the next 4 months on educational or sickness account on
payment of special licence fee i.e., double the normal rent or double the flat
rate of licence fee. This is also applicable to audit staff doing Railway audit
work. The cases of retirement on medical invalidation grounds are also to be
treated at par with normal retirement
5.2 Beyond the permitted/permissible period, however, no further
extension will be allowed on any ground, whatsoever. Therefore, no
request or representation on this score shall be entertained . For all
occupations beyond the permitted period, therefore, immediate action should
be taken to cancel the allotment, declare the occupation as unauthorised and
initiate eviction proceedings, charging damage rent for the over stay.
…………………
8.Withholding of DCRG etc. in the case of post-retirement retention of
quarter
Page 5 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

To prevent unauthorised retention of Railway accommodation by the retired
Railway employees, Railway Administration should take the following steps
to discourage them from such action:-
(i) 'No Claim' certificate should not be given, unless the employee, after
retirement, has vacated the Railway quarter and cleared all his arrears of rent,
electricity and other charges, etc.
(ii) The retirement/death gratuity or special contribution to P.E., as the case
may be, should be withheld in full for non-vacation of railway quarter, not
only after superannuation but in all cases of cessation of service, namely,
voluntary retirement, death etc. Further, the amount withheld should remain
with the Administration only in the form of cash without conversion into any
type of security, lest the very purpose of withholding full D.C.R.G. should get
defeated. It may also please be kept in view that the gratuity should be
released, as soon as the quarter is vacated; so that there is neither any hardship
to the retired employee or his/her family, nor there is any claim for payment of
interest on withheld gratuity for reasons of administrative delay.
……..
(iv) The provisions under Sub Rule (8) of Rule-16 of the Railway Services
(Pension) Rules, 1993, as reproduced below for ready reference, shall be
strictly followed:
"(8) (a) In case where a railway accommodation is not vacated after
superannuation of the Railway servant or after cessation of his services such
as on voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement, medical invalidation or
death, then, the full amount of retirement gratuity, death gratuity or special
ll
contribution to provident fund, as the case may be, sha be withheld.
(b) The amount withheld under clause (a) shall remain with the railway
administration in the form of cash.
(c) In case the railway accommodation is not vacated even after the
permissible period of retention after the superannuation, retirement,
cessation of service or death, as the case may be, the railway
administration shall have the right to withhold, recover, or adjust
from the Death-cum-retirement Gratuity, the normal rent, special
licence fee or damage rent, as may be due from the ex-railway
employee and return only the balance, if any, on vacation of the
Railway accommodation……
9. The aforesaid rules specifically provide that when Railway
accommodation is not vacated even after the permissible period of
retention, the Railway Administration has the right to withhold,
recover or adjust from the DCRG the normal rent, special licence fee or
damage rent due from the retired employee. The provisions, as has
been quoted above, clearly authorises the respondents for initiation of
recovery from the DCRG.
10. The decision of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal passed in OA
No. 1314/2000, as relied upon by the applicant, is distinguishable from
the instant case. The said case related to retention of government
Page 6 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA

quarter after transfer. The instant case relates to retention of
government accommodation after retirement. In this case the applicant
had already availed the maximum permissible period of retention. His
further request for extension was specifically rejected vide order dated
26.11.2018 and he was directed to vacate the quarter, however, he
continued to occupy the accommodation till 22.07.2019. The
respondents thereafter specifically treated the period from 18.03.2019 to
22.07.2019 as unauthorised retention and informed the applicant about
the same from time to time.
11. The contention of the applicant that no loss was caused to the
Railways since demolition of the quarters commenced after his vacation
of quarter does not entitle the applicant to occupy Government
accommodation after retirement beyond permissible limit for which he
is liable to pay the damage rent.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and the clear and unambiguous
provisions of the applicable rules, the recovery of damage rent from the
applicant's DCRG cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The
respondents have acted in accordance with the rules governing
retention of Railway accommodation after retirement.
13. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders
passed by the respondents, warranting any interference by this
dismissed
Tribunal. The instant Original Application is, accordingly,
being devoid of merit.

14. Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.
All the related MAs stand disposed of.

( Anjani Nandan Sharan ) ( Justice Rajiv Joshi )
Member (A) Member (J)
SahilSharma/-

Page 7 of 7

SAHIL SHARMA