Facts
The applicant, Chittaranjan Nayak, joined service as a Junior Clerk/Typist on 13.01.1988 and is currently an Office Superintendent in the Office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Con)-II, East Coast Railway, Angul.
Source reference: p.2His office was shifted from Bhubaneswar to Angul, and consequently, he was transferred to Angul with effect from 18.04.2016.
Source reference: p.5, p.6The applicant was initially allowed to retain his Railway quarter (Type-II, G/9) at Rail Awas, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, from 18.04.2016 to 17.06.2016 on normal rent, and then until the end of the scholastic session on double flat rent.
Source reference: p.6He vacated the quarter on 30.05.2020.
Source reference: p.6On 03.11.2022, Respondent No.3 passed an order imposing a damage rent of Rs. 14,03,585/- for the alleged unauthorized occupation of the Railway quarter.
Source reference: p.2-3The applicant challenged this order by filing an appeal/reply on 02.05.2023 (A/14), which was rejected by Respondent No.3 and 5 on 12/13.07.2023 (A/15) without providing cogent reasons.
Source reference: p.3The applicant contended that as per Railway Board's guidelines dated 27.01.2016 (A/3), retention of a quarter is permissible for transfers on a temporary basis or change in place of duty without a change in controlling authority.
Source reference: p.3The respondents argued that the retention permission granted was from 18.04.2016 to 15.04.2017 "under the rules" and that the applicant's unauthorized retention after this period justified the damage rent.
Source reference: p.4, p.6They also stated that quarter was available at Angul and that RBE No. 197/200, 143/05, 132, and 43/2012 cited by the applicant were not applicable.
Source reference: p.5, p.7However, the applicant's application for a quarter in Angul on 29.03.2017 was rejected due to unavailability.
Source reference: p.7No notice declaring his occupation as unauthorized or asking him to vacate was issued by the respondents.
Source reference: p.7Issues
1. Whether the orders dated 03.11.2022 and 12/13.07.2023 imposing damage rent on the applicant for alleged unauthorized occupation of the Railway quarter are legally sustainable?
Source reference: p.2, p.32. Whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation to retain the quarter based on Railway Board's guidelines and his application for retention?
Source reference: p.83. Whether the respondents are liable to refund the recovered amount of damage rent along with accrued interest?
Source reference: p.2, p.9Law Applied
The letter dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure A/3) states that if there is a transfer on a temporary basis or a change in place of duty without any change in the controlling authority, railway employees are not required to vacate their railway quarters and retention is permissible under the rules.
Source reference: p.3, p.8The principle of legitimate expectation is also implicitly applied, arising from the respondents' inaction on the applicant's representation for quarter retention.
Source reference: p.8Reasoning
The court noted that the admitted fact was the applicant's transfer to Angul after his unit shifted from Bhubaneswar on 18.04.2016.
Source reference: p.6The core of the applicant's argument rested on the Railway Board's letter dated 27.01.2016 (A/3), which allows quarter retention if there is no change in the controlling authority despite a change in duty station.
Source reference: p.3, p.8The respondents' counter-affidavit did not address whether there was a change in controlling authority in the applicant's case.
Source reference: p.8Crucially, the court found that the respondents had not taken any action on the applicant's representation dated 04.04.2016 for extension of quarter retention, which was well before time.
Source reference: p.8Furthermore, despite the respondents' claim of quarter availability in Angul, the applicant's application for a quarter there on 29.03.2017 was rejected due to non-availability.
Source reference: p.7The respondents also failed to declare the applicant's occupation as unauthorized or issue any notice to vacate the quarter prior to imposing damage rent in 2022, after he had already vacated.
Source reference: p.7The court reasoned that in the absence of a decision by the respondents on the applicant's request for extension, coupled with the lack of communication declaring his occupation unauthorized and the non-availability of alternative quarters in Angul, the occupation could not be termed unauthorized.
Source reference: p.8This inaction on the part of the respondents led the court to conclude that the applicant had a legitimate expectation that his case for retention would be considered positively under the existing guidelines.
Source reference: p.8Holding
The court allowed the Original Application.
The impugned orders dated 03.11.2022 (A/13) and 12/13.07.2023 (A/15), imposing damage rent on the applicant, were quashed.
Source reference: p.9The court further directed that any recovery made in pursuance of the impugned orders must be refunded to the applicant within a period of 90 days.
Source reference: p.9Original Court PDF
Chittaranjan Nayak v. Union of India and Ors. [O.A. No. 260/00515 of 2023]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in