Railway may recover rest-house charges when an officer declines offered regular accommodation.

The applicant joined North Central Railway Headquarters on 9 May 2022 and occupied an air-conditioned room in the Officer Rest House (ORH) as temporary accommodation.

He applied for regular accommodation and was offered a Type-IV quarter on 2 September 2022, which he declined as below his entitlement.

The respondents stated that a Type-V quarter was later allotted, initially accepted, but subsequently surrendered because of its condition.

The respondents proposed recovery of ORH charges and, on 2 March 2023, issued the challenged recovery order.

The applicant sought its quashing, arguing, among other things, that he had not been offered accommodation matching his entitlement and had not received HRA.

He challenged the order before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in recovering ORH charges after the applicant declined regular accommodation offered to him.

2. Whether the applicant’s claim that the offered accommodation was below his entitlement, or that HRA was not paid, made the recovery unlawful.

The Tribunal applied the North Central Railway guidelines dated 13 September 2019 governing ORH occupation by officers joining on transfer.

Under Annexure-I, clause (i), ORH occupation was initially permitted for ten days; clause (ii)(a) allowed continued residential occupation as an interim arrangement where regular or transit accommodation had not been offered; and clause (ii)(b) provided that, if an officer declined accommodation offered, charges under Table-I, item 7, were payable from the date of allotment.

Clause (iv) permitted an officer entitled to Type-V accommodation to be allotted Type-IV accommodation temporarily, with registration for a Type-V change.

Clause (iii) provided for recovery of ORH charges and non-payment of HRA during permitted residential occupation.

The Railway Board’s amendment dated 16 November 2023, limiting rent in specified circumstances, was expressly prospective and did not govern the applicant’s 2022–2023 claim.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been offered a Type-IV quarter after applying for regular accommodation and that his refusal brought the case within clause (ii)(b) of the 2019 guidelines.

It held that the guidelines also contemplated temporary Type-IV accommodation for officers entitled to Type-V housing, so the applicant’s asserted entitlement did not, by itself, justify continued ORH occupation without the prescribed charges.

The later Railway Board amendment could not apply retrospectively, and non-payment of HRA did not extinguish liability for ORH charges under the then-applicable instructions.

The Tribunal also noted that a recovery proposal had preceded the final order and that the recovery represented prescribed occupation charges, not disciplinary punishment.

It dismissed the Original Application, made no order as to costs, and disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications.