Railway damage rent is recoverable only for retention beyond permitted and COVID-exempt periods.

The applicant, a Railway employee, was allotted Railway Quarter No. 29/A, Type II, at Nawada in 2012.

After his transfer to Warshaliganj in May 2017, he retained the quarter, stating that no railway accommodation was available at his new posting.

He was transferred to Sheikhpura in August 2021, where accommodation was available, but continued occupying the Nawada quarter until 22 May 2024.

The respondents demanded ₹27,71,494 as damage rent for the period from 11 May 2017 to 22 May 2024, and began monthly salary deductions.

The applicant challenged the demand, relying in part on deductions of ordinary charges and the absence of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The Tribunal stayed recovery pending the application.

The Tribunal divided the occupation into the period before transfer, the Warshaliganj posting, and the Sheikhpura posting.

1. Whether continued occupation of the Nawada railway quarter after transfer could be treated as authorised merely because ordinary licence and utility charges were deducted, and whether the Warshaliganj and Sheikhpura periods should be treated differently.

2. Whether the absence of a separate determination under Section 7 of the Public Premises Act invalidated the damage-rent demand where the occupation period was admitted.

The Tribunal referred to the Railway Board’s Master Circular No. 49 as prescribing the applicable damage-rent rates for unauthorised retention.

It also relied on Rule 16 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as the statutory basis for recovering railway dues, including unpaid licence fee and damage rent, from retirement benefits.

In discussing Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, the Tribunal recognised its quasi-judicial process for determining liabilities, but held that a separate inquiry was unnecessary where the material facts were admitted and the charge was calculable under fixed tariff slabs.

The Tribunal considered Union of India v. Madan Mohan Prasad, which held that penal damages are not, without determination, “admitted or obvious” dues under the railway pension rules; it distinguished that principle on the basis that the occupation period here was admitted and the amount was calculated by reference to prescribed rates.

It also referred to Union of India v. Sisir Kumar Deb concerning the Railway Administration’s ability to recover dues and take possession of railway accommodation.

The Tribunal found no written approval extending the applicant’s right to retain the quarter after transfer, and held that deductions of ordinary licence or utility charges did not amount to regularisation or waive damage rent.

It nevertheless treated the Warshaliganj period differently because the respondents admitted that no railway accommodation was available there; the COVID-19 retention concession also covered that period.

By contrast, accommodation was available at Sheikhpura, and the applicant had not shown that he applied for it.

The Tribunal therefore treated occupation from 11 August 2021 to 22 May 2024 as unauthorised.

On the Section 7 objection, it considered the occupation period and absence of a written extension to be admitted, and the damage rent to be calculable under fixed rates; it consequently found a separate Section 7 determination unnecessary in the circumstances.

The respondents were directed to revise the order dated 30 July 2024 by excluding the Warshaliganj posting period and calculating damage rent only for unauthorised occupation from 11 August 2021 to 22 May 2024, in accordance with the applicable rules.

The revised amount may be recovered in instalments that do not cause grave financial hardship.

The respondents were directed to complete the reconciliation and calculation within 90 days; no order was made as to interest or costs.