Damage rent cannot be imposed before the academic session ends when railway-quarter retention is granted on educational grounds.

The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer in East Coast Railway, had been allotted Railway Quarter No. G/70/A (Type-III) at Accounts Colony, Khurda Road, while serving as Senior Technician in the Khurda Road Division.

She was selected for promotion as Junior Engineer (C&W), released from her parent cadre on 14.03.2023, and posted under the Principal Chief Mechanical Engineer, Bhubaneswar.

Post-facto permission was granted to retain the quarter from 15.03.2023 to 14.05.2023 on normal licence fee.

On educational grounds, she was subsequently permitted to retain it from 15.05.2023 to 14.11.2023 on payment of double licence fee.

The applicant’s adopted son was studying at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jatni.

She sought retention of the quarter for the academic session 2023–24, allegedly until 31.03.2024, on educational grounds.

The Railway authorities treated her occupation after 14.11.2023 as unauthorised and initiated recovery of approximately Rs. 2,01,242 towards normal licence fee, double licence fee and damage rent, including damage rent from 15.11.2023 onwards.

Her representations were rejected on the ground that retention on educational grounds was permissible only for the academic session current at the time of her transfer, subject to the applicable Railway Board instructions.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to retain the Railway quarter on educational grounds up to the end of the academic session 2023–24, namely 31.03.2024, notwithstanding her transfer in March 2023?

2. Whether levy of damage rent from 15.11.2023 to 31.03.2024 was arbitrary and liable to be substituted with double licence fee?

3. Whether the Railway authorities’ rejection of the applicant’s representations suffered from non-application of mind and inconsistency with their earlier decision permitting retention up to 14.11.2023 on educational grounds?

The Tribunal applied paragraph 10.1(a) of Railway Board Master Circular No. 49 (Revised), issued through RBE No. 135/2019, under which an employee transferred to another station may retain Railway accommodation at the former station for two months on normal licence fee and, on educational grounds, for a further six months on double licence fee; further retention may be permitted only to cover the current academic session.

Under the relevant Railway Board instructions, the academic session means the period ending with the last paper of the annual examination plus fifteen days, and not merely the date on which examination results are declared.

The Circular also permits retention through the next academic session where the ward is studying in Class IX or XI, up to the end of the relevant Class X or XII session plus fifteen days.

The Tribunal further relied on administrative-law principles requiring public authorities to act fairly, consistently and without arbitrary discrimination.

The Tribunal further referred to Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan v. Hari Prasad Bhuyan, (2003) 1 SCC 197, on the consequences of procedural non-compliance and non-application of mind in administrative decision-making.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been relieved from her former place of posting on 14.03.2023 and that her son’s education at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Jatni was undisputed.

Although the respondents contended that the applicant could claim educational retention only for the 2022–23 academic session, they themselves permitted retention from 15.05.2023 to 14.11.2023 exclusively on educational grounds.

The Tribunal held that this permission necessarily operated during the 2023–24 academic session and therefore demonstrated that the authorities had recognised the applicant’s entitlement on educational grounds during that session.

Consequently, treating her occupation as unauthorised immediately from 15.11.2023, while the 2023–24 academic session was still continuing, was held to be inconsistent with the applicable policy and indicative of non-application of mind.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that damage rent could not validly be imposed for the period up to 31.03.2024 and that the charges for that period had to be recalculated at double the licence fee.

The orders rejecting retention of the quarter up to the end of the 2023–24 academic session, including the orders dated 05.08.2024, 20.09.2024 and 08.05.2025 to that extent, were annulled.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to modify the recovery order dated 05/16.08.2024 by replacing damage rent levied from 15.11.2023 to 31.03.2024 with double licence fee and to issue a revised order within thirty days of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

Any excess amount recovered from the applicant was directed to be refunded within fifteen days of issuance of the revised order.

The remaining reliefs were declined, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.