Railway Administration may recover damage rent from DCRG for unauthorised post-retirement quarter retention.

The applicant, a retired Senior Section Engineer of North Central Railway, was granted voluntary retirement after more than 32 years of service pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier directions in O.A. No. 70 of 2018.

Following retirement, he was permitted to retain Railway Quarter No. F-300 from 18 July 2018 to 17 November 2018 on payment of normal rent.

His subsequent request for a further four-month retention period on double rent was rejected on 26 November 2018, and he was directed to vacate the quarter.

The applicant nevertheless continued occupying the quarter and vacated it on 22 July 2019.

The Railway Administration charged double rent for the period from 18 November 2018 to 17 March 2019 and treated the period from 18 March 2019 to 22 July 2019 as unauthorised occupation, recovering ₹76,487 as damage rent from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG).

The applicant contended that his continued occupation was bona fide, owing to ill health, his sons’ education, and the proposed demolition of the quarters, and sought waiver or write-off of the damage rent.

Whether the applicant was entitled to retain the Railway quarter beyond the permissible period after voluntary retirement on grounds of illness, education of his children, or the proposed demolition of the quarter?

Whether the Railway Administration was legally authorised to recover damage rent for the period of unauthorised occupation from the applicant’s DCRG?

Whether the impugned orders directing or effecting recovery of ₹76,487 from the applicant’s DCRG were illegal, arbitrary, or otherwise liable to be set aside?

The Tribunal applied the Railway Board’s instructions dated 1 June 2001 concerning retention of Railway accommodation after retirement.

Under paragraph 5.1, a retired or voluntarily retired Railway employee may retain non-earmarked accommodation for four months on normal rent and for a further four months on educational or sickness grounds on payment of special licence fee or double rent.

Paragraph 5.2 expressly prohibits any further extension and treats occupation thereafter as unauthorised, attracting damage rent.

The Tribunal also applied Rule 16(8) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, under which, where Railway accommodation is not vacated after cessation of service, the Administration may withhold the retirement or death gratuity and, after expiry of the permissible retention period, recover or adjust normal rent, special licence fee, or damage rent from the DCRG.

The Tribunal distinguished the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 1314 of 2000 because that case concerned retention of accommodation after transfer, whereas the present case involved post-retirement retention.

The applicant had already been granted the maximum permissible retention period: four months on normal rent followed by the additional period contemplated under the Railway rules.

His request for further retention was expressly rejected on 26 November 2018, with a direction to vacate the quarter.

His continued occupation until 22 July 2019 therefore constituted unauthorised retention under paragraph 5.2 of the Railway Board’s instructions.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s personal circumstances and the fact that demolition allegedly commenced only after he vacated the quarter could not override the express prohibition against further extension or eliminate liability for damage rent.

Since Rule 16(8) specifically authorised recovery or adjustment of damage rent from DCRG after the permissible retention period, the deduction of ₹76,487 was held to be in accordance with law and not arbitrary.

It held that the applicant had no enforceable right to retain the Railway quarter beyond the permissible period and that the respondents were authorised to recover damage rent for his unauthorised occupation from his DCRG.

The challenge to the orders dated 20 February 2019, 26 July 2019, and 5 August 2019, as well as the prayer for waiver or write-off of the damage rent, was rejected.

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; any interim order stood discharged and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.