Recovery of damage rent for unauthorized occupation of railway quarters does not require recourse to the Public Premises Act.

The petitioner was appointed as Technician Grade-1 at Jamalpur Workshop in 1980

In 2000, he was declared surplus and opted for redeployment to the Howrah Division, where he joined in July 2001

Despite moving to Howrah and drawing House Rent Allowance (HRA) there, the petitioner retained his official Railway accommodation at Jamalpur until January 20, 2010

On March 30, 2010, the Railway Authority issued a memo seeking to recover ₹5,86,920/- for damage rent, electricity, and water charges for the period of unauthorized occupation (2001–2010)

The petitioner’s representation for waiver was rejected via a reasoned order dated June 6, 2013

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench, dismissed his challenge (OA No. 1551 of 2013) on October 6, 2016

1. Whether the Railway Authority was justified in recovering damage rent and utility charges from a transferred employee who retained previous accommodation while drawing HRA at the new station

2. Whether the recovery of damage rent from an employee's salary requires the prior initiation of proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971

The Court applied the principle that a transferred employee cannot simultaneously draw HRA at a new station and retain official accommodation at a previous station

recourse to the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, is not a prerequisite for recovering damage rent from a serving employee [P.R. Subramaniyam v. Union of India (1978 SCC (L&S) 35)]

the "cardinal principles" of certiorari jurisdiction restrict High Courts from acting as an appellate court or re-weighing evidence when reviewing tribunal orders [Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das (2023 16 SCC 462)]

The Court found that the petitioner’s retention of the Jamalpur quarter for nearly nine years after his transfer to Howrah was legally indefensible, particularly as he was drawing monthly HRA at the new posting

The petitioner's reliance on a 2004 Railway Board circular regarding the retention of accommodation was rejected because he failed to produce or argue this before the lower tribunal or the respondent authorities

Addressing the procedural challenge, the Court affirmed the CAT’s finding that the authorities are not mandated to follow the 1971 Act's eviction procedures simply to calculate and recover damage rent from a current employee’s salary

Under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court concluded that there was no "error of law apparent on the face of the record" nor any jurisdictional excess in the tribunal's judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, vacated any interim orders, and upheld the CAT’s judgment, ruling that it had taken a "plausible view" that did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction