ARJUN SINGH vs EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY

1
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


CENTRAL ADMINISTRA
ATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH,
O.A. No. 050/00

Pro
, PATNA
0471/2021
Reserved on:- 01.10.2026
onounced on :- 16.10.2026


C O R A M
M
CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]
HO
ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

ngh, male, aged about 63 years,
Arjun Sin
son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh,
,
Resident
of Mohalla Bhawani Kuan, Bad
di Khagaul, PO and PS Khagaul,
,
District-Pa
atna-801105. Retired from the pos
st of Office Superintendent, C&W,
,
ral Railway, Gaya.

East Centr


Applicant
………
Versu
us

Patna
Bench
1. The Un
nion of India through General M
Manager, East Central Railway,
,
Hajipur,
2. The Gen
3. The Divi
, Vaishali-844118.
neral Manager (P), East Central Rai
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
ilway, Hajipur, Vaishali-844118.
ntral Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay
01.
POOJA
KUMARI
isional Railway Manager, East Cen
n, Din Dayal Upadhyay (UP)-23210
y
Division
4. The Sen
nior Divisional Personnel Officer,
East Central Railway, Din Dayal
(UP)-232101.
l
Upadhya
5. The Div
ay Division, Din Dayal Upadhyay (
visional Personnel Officer, Eas
ay Division, Din Dayal Upadhyay (
st Central Railway, Din Dayal
(UP)-232101.
l
Upadhya
6. The Sen
ior Divisional Financial Manager,
ay Division, Din Dayal Upadhyay (
nior Divisional Mechanical Engine
, East Central Railway, Din Dayal
(UP) 232101.
l
Upadhya
7. The Sen
eer (C&W), East Central Railway,
Upadhyay (UP) 232101.
,
Din Day
8. The Sen
al Upadhyay Division, Din Dayal U
nior Divisional Engineer, East Cen
ntral Railway, Danapur Division,
,
Danapur
r-801105.


licant:- Mr. Shekhar S
Sumit Kumar
pondents:- Mr. T.N. Thak
Respondents
……..
Singh, ld. Sr. Adv. with Mr.
For Appl
.
and Ms. Shambhavi Singh
kur, ld. Sr. CGSC
For Resp
O R D
E R
Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C
Chandra, Member (A):
1. The in
nstant OA has been filed by
y the applicant seeking the
e
followin
ng relief:-
i. To quash the order con
ntained in letter bearing no.
020 dated 04.03.2021 issued by
.
y
n
E/Pen./Niptara/Samadi/20
the Divisional Personnel Off
Dayal Upadhyay Division a
fficer, East Central Railway, Din
addressed to the Senior Divisional
l

2
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


Financial Manager, East
Upadhyay Division whereb
Rs. 14,59,199/- (Rupees Fou
One Hundred Ninety Nine
Relief of the applicant on ac
bill, excess leave without fol
erroneous manner.
ii. To direct the respondent a
Central Railway, Din Dayal
by it has been directed to deduct
l
t
d
urteen Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand
only) from DCRG and Dearness
ccount of damage rent, electricity
s
y
n
llowing due procedures of law in
authorities to release the entire
e
DCRG of the applicant.
iii. To direct the respondents to
o pay interest over the amount of
f
aused in its payment

h the applicants are entitled.
DCRG for the undue delay ca
iv. Other relief/reliefs for which

ief facts of the case, as per th
2. The bri
he instant O.A., are discussed
d
and del
lineated as follows:
1 The applicant has superan
nuated from post of Office
e
2.1
Superintendent, C&W, East
t Central Railway, Gaya on
n
28.02.2017. He has been pai
id all his retiral dues but his
s
Patna
Bench
Death-cum-Retirement Gratu
uity has not been released till
l
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
date. He approached the Off
fice of the Divisional Railway
y
Manager (Personnel), East
Central Railway, Din Dayal
l
Upadhyay Division various tim
mes for release of his gratuity
y
but no action has been taken
n till date. Then the applicant
t
came to know abo
out a letter bearing
g
no.E/Pen/Niptara/Samadi/20
020 dated 13.10.2020
0
( Annexure A-1 ) issued by th
he Senior Divisional Personnel
l
Officer, Din Dayal Upadhya
ay Division, addressed to the
e
Senior Divisional Engineer
r/Coordination, East Central
l
Railway, Danapur whereby it
t has been communicated that
t
the applicant was allotted a ho
ouse bearing no. 132/CD, Type
e
II at Loco Colony, Danapur w
which was vacated by him on
n
16.08.2019.
2
It has further been stated in th
he said letter that the applicant
t
2.2
has stayed in the said quarter
from 18.01.2000 to 15.08.2019
9
without any valid permission a
as such the damage rent for the
e
period 18.01.2000 to 15.08.2
019 may be computed so that
t
the same be deducted from th
he DCRG and the rest amount
t
may be paid. A copy of the
said letter was marked to the
e
applicant for filing objection, if
f any.

3
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


3 The applicant filed his objec
ction through his letter dated
d
2.3
10.11.2020 ( Annexure A-2 )
clarifying thereby that between
n
18.01.2000 to 31.12.2012 he
was working at Hajipur and
d
submitted application for all
lotment of quarter but Senior
r
Deputy General Manager, E
East Central Railway, Hajipur
r
issued a certificate regarding
g non availability of Railway
y
Quarter at Hajipur. As per c
circular issued by the Railway
y
Board, on account of the fact
t that the Hajipur was a newly
y
created Zone, the employees
s were permitted to keep the
e
house in the division. The rete
ention of the Railway Quarter at
t
Danapur by the applicant was
never objected by any authority
y
and the rent was realized from
m his salary as usual. Similarly,
,
when the applicant was po
osted at Gaya under Senior
r
Divisional Mechanical Engi
neer (C&W), DDU between
n
Patna
Bench
01.01.2013 to 28.02.2017, he
submitted his application for
r
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
allotment of railway quarter b
but no quarter was ever allotted
d
as such he continued to re
etain the Railway Quarter at
t
Danapur and the rent was rea
alized from his salary as usual.
.
Upon his superannuation the
e applicant became engaged in
n
the treatment of his wife a
at Tata Memorial Hospital at
t
Bombay for cancer as such th
he Railway Quarter at Danapur
r
was vacated finally on 16.08.20
019.
4 The applicant claims that he
had never retained the quarter
r
2.4
unauthorizedly rather he alw
ways submitted applications to
o
the competent authority for
allowing him to stay in the
e
Railway Quarter after his sup
perannuation. It is relevant to
o
state here that at no point of t
time ever till the vacation of the
e
Quarter the applicant was serv
ved any notice/order intimating
g
him that his stay in the Rai
ilway Quarter in question was
s
unauthorized nor he was eve
er served any letter/notice for
r
vacating the Quarter. Rathe
er the usual rent was always
s
realized from him, which in
ndicates that the retention of
f
Quarter by him was impli
edly approved and was not
t
unauthorized.
5 The applicant has filed variou
us representations but the same
e
2.5
have not been responded till da
ate. ( Annexure A-4 series ).

4
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


6 After filing the aforesaid rep
resentations the applicant was
s
2.6
expecting that the concerned
respondent authorities would
d
release his DCRG but instead
d of that he became shocked to
o
receive copy of the
order contained in no.
.
E/Pen./Niptara/Samadi/2020
0 dated letter bearing
g
04.03.2021 ( Annexure A-5
5 ) issued by the Divisional
l
Personnel Officer, East Centra
al Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay
y
Division, addressed to the
Senior Divisional Financial
l
Manager, East Central Rai
ilway, Din Dayal Upadhyay
y
Division, whereby deductions
have been ordered to be made
e
from DCRG amount and dearn
ness relief.
7 It is settled proposition that
pensionary benefits cannot be
e
2.7
arbitrarily withheld or no arbit
trary and erroneous deductions
s
can be made from the retira
al benefits, as these are 'not a
a
Patna
Bench
bounty, payable on the swe
eet will and pleasure of the
e
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
government. It is a right of
f government employees, and
d
compliance with the procedu
ure is mandatory, if pension is
s
sought to be withheld by the g
government, to whatever extent
t
permitted by the Rules. (Ref.
Subrata Sen v. Union of India,
,
AIR 2001 SC 3634, D S Naka
ara v. Union of India, (1983) 1
1
SCC 305, Deokinandan Prasad
d v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC
C
330).
8 It is settled proposition of
f law that recovery of penal
l
2.8
rent/damages cannot be held
d unless one is declared as an
n
unauthorized occupant under
r the Public Premises (Eviction
n
of Unauthorized Occupants) A
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to
o
as the Act) and recovery
is effected as per law and
d
methodology adopted therein.
. As the penal/damages etc. are
e
not admitted dues, cannot be r
recovered from the applicant.
9
It is also submitted that the pr
rocedure under the Act requires
s
2.9
that a show-cause notice sho
ould be issued to the railway
y
servant, stating the grounds on
n which eviction is proposed to
o
be undertaken, according to S
Section 4 of the Act. Arrears of
f
rent and damages are to b
be assessed according to the
e
procedure prescribed under Se
ection 7 of the Act. Section 7(2)
)
stipulates that assessment of d
damages for use and occupation
n

5
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


of premises may be undertak
ken by the Estate Officer, after
r
which the occupant is require
ed to pay such damages within
n
the time specified in the order
r. Thus, this provision requires
s
that a show-cause be issued b
before an order is passed by the
e
Estate Officer under Section
7(2) that requires payment of
f
damages. Since Rule 16(8)(e)
) of the Pension Rules triggers
s
the applicability of procedure u
under Section 7 of the Act, 1971
1
it is only after this procedure
e has been fully complied with
h
due (damages and rent) can be
e considered to be assessed and
d
ascertained. Only after this pr
rocedure is followed, the DCRG
G
can be adjusted against the due
es.
10 It is further submitted that th
he limitation period for making
g
2.1
a monetary demand under c
contractual agreement is three
e
years from the day the money
y becomes due, as evident from
m
Patna
Bench
the Schedule to the Limitatio
on Act, 1963. Article 52 of the
e
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
Schedule stipulates three yea
ars (from the date the arrears
s
become due) as the limitation
n period for claiming arrears of
f
rent. In this light, it is apparen
nt that this claim for arrears of
f
rent and damages is hopelessly
y time-barred.
11 It is also submitted that the
e aforesaid impugned order as
s
2.1
contained in the letter dated
d 04.03.2021 also includes the
e
dues for excess leave. Howeve
er, the fact is that the applicant
t
had 4 surplus leaves as on t
the date of his retirement i.e.
.
11.02.2017 which is evident fro
om the bare perusal of the leave
e
sheet of the applicant duly
signed by the Senior Section
n
Engineer (G&W), East Centra
al Railway, Gaya and Assistant
t
Divisional Mechanical Enginee
er, East Central Railway, Gaya.
.
( AnnexureA-6 )
12
The applicant has already s
spent his entire savings on the
e
2.1
treatment of his ailing wife wh
ho is suffering from cancer and
d
on account of non-payment
t of his legitimate dues the
e
applicant suffered a lot. This r
renders the respondents to pay
y
interest on the payable amoun
nt of DCRG. Hence, the present
t
Original Application.
3. Per con
ntra, the Respondents have
contested the case by filing
g
written
n statements in which it was st
tated that:

6
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


1 The respondents have submit
tted that the applicant retired
d
3.1
from Railway Services on 28.0
02.2017 from the post of Office
e
Superintendent but did not
vacate Railway Quarter No.
.
132/CD, Loco Colony, Dan
napur, immediately after his
s
retirement. He vacated the sa
aid quarter only on 16.08.2019.
.
According to the responden
nts, the applicant had been
n
occupying the quarter with
hout valid permission since
e
18.01.2000, even after his tran
nsfer from Danapur to Hajipur
r
and thereafter to Gaya un
nder the DDU Division. The
e
respondents have stated that
the applicant failed to produce
e
any order or document issue
ed by the competent authority
y
permitting him to retain the qu
uarter.
2 The respondents have further
r submitted that the applicant
t
3.2
was asked, vide letter dated 1
10.08.2020, to submit proof of
f
Patna
Bench
permission for retaining the
Railway quarter. However, he
e
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
failed to produce any such doc
cument. Although the applicant
t
submitted a representatio
on dated 17.08.2020, the
e
respondents contend that it
t did not contain any valid
d
permission order for retenti
ion of the quarter up to his
s
retirement.
3 The respondents further su
ubmitted that the applicant's
s
3.3
Death-cum-Retirement Gratu
uity (DCRG) was withheld
d
because he failed to vacate th
he Railway quarter immediately
y
after retirement, as required
d under the Railway Services
s
(Pension) Rules, 1993. They ha
ave relied upon Rules 15 and 16
6
of the said Rules to justify th
e recovery of damage rent and
d
other outstanding dues from
m the applicant's retirement
t
benefits and Dearness Relief. A
According to them, the damage
e
rent of Rs. 14,26,515/-, electric
city charges of Rs. 29,814/-, and
d
excess leave credited amo
ounting to Rs. 2,870/- are
e
recoverable from the applicant
t. They have also stated that the
e
applicant had been credited w
with 15 days of excess leave, as
s
reflected in the leave-sheet d
details annexed to the written
n
statement.
4 The respondents have denie
ed the applicant's allegations
s
3.4
regarding the illegality of
f the deductions and have
e

7
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


maintained that the recove
ery is permissible under the
e
applicable Railway rules with
hout the pensioner's consent.
.
They have further submitted
that the procedure under the
e
Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act,
,
1971, is not applicable to the p
present case, as the Railway has
s
its own rules governing such m
matters.
5 In view of the above subm
issions, the respondents have
e
3.5
contended that the applicant
himself is responsible for the
e
delay in vacating the Railway
y quarter and the consequent
t
withholding of his retirement
benefits. They have, therefore,
,
prayed that the original applic
cation be dismissed as devoid of
f
merit and not sustainable in la
aw.
4. Ld. cou
unsel for applicant has filed
d the rejoinder in which, by
y
that:
Patna
Bench
reiterat
ting the same facts, he stated t
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
It is wrong to say that the app
plicant continued occupation of
f
POOJA
KUMARI
4.1
the Railway Quarter witho
out any permission from the
e
competent authority. It is ne
ecessary to bring on record the
e
application dated 27.07.2004
4 ( Annexure A-7 ) submitted
d
by the applicant to the Gener
ral Manager (Mechanical), East
t
Central Railway, Hajipur for
retention of the Quarter which
h
was duly endorsed by the Seni
ior Officials of the Railway.
The respondents have erroneo
ously relied on sub rule-1 and 2
2
4.2
of the Rule-15 of the Railway
Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
.
It is relevant to point out tha
at as per sub-rule-8E of Rule-16
6
of the Railway Services (Pe
ension) Rules, 1993, disputes
s
regarding recovery of damag
ges from ex-Railway employee
e
shall be subject to adjudica
ation by the concerned Estate
e
Officers appointed under the
e Public Premises (Eviction of
f
Unauthorized Persons) Act, 19
971.
It is also stated that the appli
icant has always submitted due
e
4.3
applications regarding quar
rter and on the other hand
d
Railway Authorities have fai
iled to bring on record even a
a
single chit of paper by which
they may term the retention of
f
Quarter by the applicant as u
nauthorized. Now, at this stage
e
they cannot be allowed to take
e benefit of their own wrong.

8
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


5. After h
hearing the learned counsel
ls for both the parties and
d
perusal
l of the material available b
before this Tribunal, I have
e
conside
ered the matter in its entire
ety and arrived at following
g
conclus
sions:
5.1 F
From the facts available on r
record, it is evident that the
e
a
applicant retired from Railway s
service on 28.02.2017 from the
e
p
post of Office Superintendent,
, C&W, East Central Railway,
,
G
Gaya. However, he continued to
o occupy the Railway quarter in
n
q
question and vacated it only on
16.08.2019. Thus, the applicant
t
r
retained the Railway accommod
dation for a considerable period
d
o
of time even after his retirem
ment. The applicant has not
t
d
disputed the fact of such occup
pation or the date on which the
e
Patna
Bench
q
quarter was finally vacated. His
main contention is that he had
d
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
b
been retaining the quarter with
h the knowledge of the Railway
y
POOJA
KUMARI
a
authorities, that he had sub
bmitted applications seeking
g
p
permission for its retention, a
and that the normal rent was
s
r
regularly deducted from his sala
ary. He has also relied upon the
e
c
circumstances of the no
on-availability of Railway
y
a
accommodation at Hajipur and
his subsequent posting at Gaya
a
t
to justify his continued occupati
ion.
5.2 T
The applicant has contended
d that he had submitted an
n
a
application dated 27.07.2004
4 to the General Manager
r
(
(Mechanical), East Central
Railway, Hajipur, seeking
g
p
permission to retain the quarte
er, and that the application had
d
b
been endorsed by senior Rail
lway officials. However, mere
e
s
submission or endorsement of
f an application does not, by
y
i
itself, establish that the comp
petent authority had granted
d
p
permission for retention of the
quarter for the entire period in
n
q
question. The applicant has n
not been able to establish, by
y
p
producing a specific and va
alid order of the competent
t
a
authority, that he was autho
orized to retain the quarter
r
c
continuously after his transfe
er from Danapur to Hajipur,
,
t
thereafter to Gaya, and even
after his superannuation on
n
2
28.02.2017 until 16.08.2019. S
Similarly, the fact that normal
l
r
rent was deducted from his salar
ry does not, by itself, prove that
t

9
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


h
his occupation was authorized fo
or the entire period. Payment of
f
n
normal rent and permissi
ion to retain Government
t
a
accommodation are two separ
rate matters, and one cannot
t
a
automatically be treated as proo
of of the other. Since, the period
d
o
of unauthorised retention is an
admitted fact, and the damage
e
r
rent has been computed mathe
ematically using the rigid, non-
-
d
discretionary statutory tariff sla
abs under the Railway Board's
s
M
Master Circular No. 49, there re
emains no factual ambiguity or
r
"
"unliquidated damage" that requ
uires a separate adjudication or
r
r
recording of evidence by an Es
state Officer under Section 7 of
f
t
the Public Premises Act. It is a
well-established maxim of law
w
t
that “admission is the best ev
vidence” and the law does not
t
c
compel the performance of
a useless formality ( lex nil
l
f
frustra facit ). Mandating a
Section 7 inquiry under these
e
Patna
Bench
c
circumstances would be a redu
undant exercise in procedural
l
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
f
formalism.
5.3
F
Furthermore, the mere fact tha
at the department continued to
o
d
deduct standard license fees, ele
ectricity, or water charges from
m
t
the applicant's salary does not
t create an equitable estoppel
l
a
against statutory rules, nor doe
es it condone an unauthorized
d
o
occupation. The deduction of
f utility fees is a necessary
y
c
consequence of the physical co
onsumption of public resources
s
b
by the occupant. It cannot
be construed as an implied
d
r
regularization or waiver of the
e liability to pay damage rent
t
u
under Master Circular No. 49. A
A public servant cannot claim a
a
v
vested right to sit over public
premises indefinitely without
t
a
authorisation.
5.4 T
The applicant has further conte
ended that no notice was issued
d
t
to him declaring his occupatio
on unauthorized and that the
e
r
respondents never directed him
to vacate the quarter before his
s
r
retirement. However, the absen
ce of an earlier notice, by itself,
,
c
cannot be treated as conclusive
e proof that the applicant had a
a
v
valid right to retain the Railwa
ay accommodation throughout
t
t
the disputed period. The appli
cant was required to establish
h
t
that his continued occupation
was supported by permission
n
g
granted under the applicable r
rules. The respondents, on the
e

10
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


o
other hand, have stated that t
the applicant was asked, vide
e
l
letter dated 10.08.2020, to pro
oduce proof of permission for
r
r
retention of the quarter, but he f
failed to produce any such valid
d
p
permission order. In these circu
umstances, the applicant's plea
a
t
that his occupation was implie
edly authorised merely because
e
t
the Railway authorities contin
nued to deduct normal rent
t
c
cannot be accepted as sufficient
proof of lawful retention.
5.5 I
I have also considered the a
applicant's argument that the
e
r
respondents could not recover
damage rent without following
g
t
the procedure prescribed under
r the Public Premises (Eviction
n
o
of Unauthorised Occupants) Ac
ct, 1971, particularly Sections 4
4
a
and 7 of the said Act, read with
h Rule 16(8)(e) of the Railway
y
S
Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.
The applicant has argued that
t
t
the damage rent could be re
ecovered from his retirement
t
Patna
Bench
b
benefits only after the compete
ent Estate Officer had assessed
d
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
a
and determined the damages
in accordance with law. The
e
r
respondents, however, have con
ntended that the recovery was
s
p
permissible under the applicab
ble Railway pension rules i.e.,
,
u
upon Rule 15 ( for adjustment
of the recoverable amount
t
f
from his DCRG) and 16
6(8)(a) (Adjustment and
d
r
recovery of dues pertain
ning to Govt. or Railway
y
a
accommodation) of the R
Railway Services (Pension)
)
R
Rules, 1993 which is as under:

Rule 15

“(i) It shall be the d
ascertain and asses
dues payable by a
retirement.

(ii) The Railway
ascertained and
outstanding till th
death of the railway
against the amount
or death gratuity
recovery of the d
railway servant
accordance with th
(4).

duty of the Head of Office to
o
ss Government or Railway
a railway servant due for
y
r
or Government dues as
assessed, which remain
he date of retirement or
s
n
r
d
y servant, shall be adjusted
t of the retirement gratuity
y
d
or terminal gratuity and
dues against the retiring
g
n
shall be regulated in
he provisions of sub-rule
e

11
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


(iii) For the pur
expression "Railwa
includes:

rposes of this rule, the
e
ay or Government dues"
"
a. Dues per
Government
arrears of lice
b. Dues other
Railway
accommodatio
house-buildin
other advance
allowances, le
such as Post
premium, lo
collection in f
stores) caused
Railway as a
fraud on the p
while he was i

Rule 16(8)(a)
rtaining to Railway or
accommodation including
ense fee, if any;
r
g
r than those pertaining to
o
or Government
on, namely balance of
ng or conveyance or any
t
f
y
d
e, overpayment of pay and
eave salary or other dues
s
e
Office or Life Insurance
osses (including short
freight charges shortage in
d to the Government or the
a result, if negligence or
t
n
e
r
Patna
Bench
part of the railway servant
in service.”
t
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI

In case where a rail
vacated after super
servant or after ces
as on voluntary
retirement, medica
then, the full amou
death gratuity or
provident fund, as
withheld.

In this regard, it is necessar
lway accommodation is not
t
y
h
rannuation of the railway
ssation of his service such
retirement, compulsory
al invalidation, or death,
unt of retirement gratuity,
r special contribution to
y
,
,
o
the case may be, shall be
e
5.6 I
ry to distinguish between the
e
r
respondents' authority to recov
ver Government dues and the
e
p
procedure required for dete
rmining the amount legally
y
r
recoverable. The fact is undispu
uted that the applicant retained
d
t
the quarter beyond his ret
irement without any lawful
l
a
authorization. Equally, the ap
pplicant cannot claim that no
o
l
liability arises merely because
e he disputes the demand or
r
b
because the Railway authoritie
es had earlier accepted normal
l
r
rent. The applicable provisio
ons of the Railway Services
s
(
(Pension) Rules, 1993, includin
ng Rule 16(8)(e), must be read
d
a
and applied in accordance wit
th their terms. The applicant's
s

12
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


o
objection regarding the requ
uirement of adjudication and
d
a
assessment under the Public P
Premises Act must therefore be
e
c
considered in the light of the re
elevant statutory provisions and
d
t
the material placed on record
d. Nevertheless, on the facts
s
p
presented, the applicant has
not established a valid and
d
c
continuing authorisation for ret
tention of the quarter up to the
e
d
date of its vacation. Addressing
g the statutory rule framework,
,
t
the field is completely occupie
ed by Rule 16 of the Railway
y
S
Services (Pension) Rules, 1993
(and its subsequent statutory
y
a
amendments). Rule 16(1) expl
licitly mandates that it is the
e
b
bounden duty of every retirin
ng railway servant to clear all
l
r
railway dues, and Rule 16(2)
) provides a robust statutory
y
m
mechanism to automatically
withhold or recover "unpaid
d
l
license fee" and "damage r
rent" from the Death-cum-
-
Patna
Bench
R
Retirement Gratuity (DCRG)
without requiring a separate
e
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
c
consent. Therefore, the respond
dents possess the foundational
l
s
statutory power to realize qua
arter liabilities from terminal
l
b
benefits.
5.7 R
Regarding the non-adherence
to Section 7 of the Public
c
P
Premises (Eviction of Unauthor
rised Occupants) Act, 1971, this
s
T
Tribunal is fully cognizant of
the settled legal position that
t
p
penal rent cannot normally be
e unilaterally quantified by the
e
a
administration if the liability
is arbitrary, unliquidated, or
r
f
factually disputed. The very firs
st line of the said Act says that
t
t
this is an act for eviction of un
nauthorized occupants from the
e
p
public premises and matters inc
cidental thereto. So, the primary
y
p
purpose of this act is eviction o
of such unauthorized occupant.
.
S
Section 7 of the Public Premise
es Act provides a quasi-judicial
l
s
shield to ensure due process th
hrough an Estate Officer. It is
s
e
established that the Governme
ent Accommodation has been
n
v
vacated, of course, in a delayed
d manner so eviction is not the
e
i
issue for adjudication. The only
issue is with regard to recovery
y
o
of damage rent.
5.8 I
I have also considered the ju
dicial citations quoted by the
e
a
applicant and find that they ar
re clearly distinguishable from
m
t
the facts of the instant case whe
ere the unauthorized occupation
n

13
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


i
is clearly proved. There is no
paper/document to prove any
y
a
authorization to prove the c
continued occupation of the
e
G
Government accommodation b
by the applicant even after his
s
r
retirement.
5.9
T
The applicant has also challeng
ged the recovery on the ground
d
t
that the demand for damage
rent relates to a long period,
,
b
beginning on 18.01.2000, and
is barred by limitation under
r
A
Article 52 of the Schedule t
to the Limitation Act, 1963.
.
H
However, the mere fact that th
he demand relates to an earlier
r
p
period does not, without furthe
er examination of the nature of
f
t
the claim, the dates on which th
e amounts became due, and the
e
a
applicable legal provisions, co
onclusively establish that the
e
e
entire demand is time-barr
ed. The applicant has not
t
e
established, on the material pla
aced before us, that the entire
e
Patna
Bench
c
claim is liable to be rejected sole
ely on the ground of limitation.
.
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
T
This unauthorized occupation h
had been continuing even after
r
h
his retirement. Accordingly, this
s contention cannot be accepted
d
a
as sufficient, by itself, to grant t
the relief sought in the present
t
O
Original Application.
As regards the claim relating
g to excess leave, the applicant
t
5.10
h
has contended that he had four
surplus leaves at the time of his
s
r
retirement and has relied upon
n the leave sheet stated to have
e
b
been signed by the concer
rned Railway officials. The
e
r
respondents, on the other hand
d, have asserted that 15 days of
f
e
excess leave had been credited
d to the applicant and that an
n
a
amount of Rs. 2,870/- was reco
overable on this account. Thus,
,
t
there is a dispute between the pa
arties regarding the actual leave
e
b
balance and the amount recove
erable. The applicant's claim in
n
t
this regard has to be considere
ed on the basis of the original
l
s
service records and the appl
icable leave rules. The mere
e
a
assertion of either party can
not be treated as conclusive
e
w
without proper verification of t
the relevant records. However,
,
t
the dispute regarding excess lea
ave does not, by itself, establish
h
t
that the applicant is entitled to
the entire relief claimed in the
e
O
Original Application.

14
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


5.11 I
I have also considered the app
plicant's plea that his wife was
s
s
suffering from cancer and that,
after his retirement, he had to
o
r
remain engaged in her treatme
ent at Tata Memorial Hospital,
,
M
Mumbai, which caused delay in
vacating the quarter. However,
,
s
such circumstances, though d
deserving of consideration on
n
h
humanitarian grounds, cannot
by themselves create a legal
l
r
right to retain Government acco
ommodation beyond the period
d
p
permitted under the applicable
rules. Similarly, the applicant's
s
r
reliance upon judicial decisio
ons concerning the nature of
f
p
pensionary benefits does not m
mean that all Government dues
s
a
arising out of the retention o
of official accommodation are
e
i
incapable of adjustment from r
retirement benefits. Pensionary
y
b
benefits cannot be withheld or r
reduced arbitrarily; at the same
e
t
time, a retired employee canno
ot claim immunity from lawful
l
Patna
Bench
r
recovery of dues merely becaus
se such recovery is proposed to
o
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI
b
be made from his retirement ben
nefits.
5.12
T
The applicant has sought q
quashing of the letter dated
d
0
04.03.2021, by which the respo
ndents directed recovery of Rs.
.
1
14,59,199/- towards damage
rent, electricity charges and
d
e
excess leave, along with a direct
tion to release his entire DCRG
G
a
and pay interest for the d
delay. The respondents have
e
m
maintained that the applicant
retained the Railway quarter
r
w
without valid permission and
d that the amount claimed
d
r
represents dues recoverable
from him. On an overall
l
c
consideration of the rival submi
issions, I find that the applicant
t
h
has not established his claim th
hat his retention of the quarter
r
w
was duly authorised for the entir
re disputed period. His reliance
e
u
upon applications submitted to
the Railway authorities and the
e
d
deduction of normal rent from h
his salary is not sufficient, in the
e
a
absence of proof of the necessar
ry permission, to establish that
t
h
his continued occupation was
lawful. His grounds regarding
g
l
limitation, the alleged exces
ss-leave calculation and the
e
r
requirement of proceedings un
nder the Public Premises Act
t
h
have also not been established,
, on the material placed before
e
u
us, as sufficient grounds for gra
anting the reliefs sought in the
e
p
present Original Application.

15
O.A. No. 050/00471/2021


5.13
In view of the foregoing discuss
sion, the applicant has failed to
o
e
establish a sufficient legal bas
is for quashing the impugned
d
l
letter dated 04.03.2021 or for di
irecting the release of the entire
e
D
DCRG along with interest. Ther
re is no reason for this Tribunal
l
t
to interfere with the impugned
d decision of the respondents.
.
A
Accordingly, the Original Appli
ication is dismissed . Interim
m
r
relief, if any, shall stand vacat
ted. Pending MAs, if any, also
o
s
stand disposed of with this final
order.
There shall be no order as to
costs.
5.14






pk/-
(



(Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
)
Member (A)
Patna
Bench
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
KUMARI
POOJA
KUMARI