Recovery of damage rent from superannuation benefits for unauthorized retention of government accommodation is legally sustainable.

The applicant, a superannuated Office Superintendent of the Indian Railways, was transferred from the Divisional Railway Hospital, Sonpur, to the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Garhara, on September 1, 2018.

Upon transfer, the applicant continued to occupy Railway Quarter No. 265/M at Sonpur.

On January 1, 2019, he submitted an application to the Chief Medical Superintendent (CMS) seeking a six-month extension of the allotment on medical grounds.

The respondents contended that this application was returned as it was not forwarded through the proper channel.

The applicant eventually vacated the quarter on October 31, 2020, after nearly 26 months of post-transfer occupation.

Following his superannuation on October 31, 2022, the respondents deducted Rs. 1,11,098/- from his retiral benefits as "damage rent" for unauthorized occupation.

1. Whether the applicant's retention of the railway quarter from September 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020, constituted unauthorized occupation under the applicable Railway rules.

2. Whether the respondents were legally justified in deducting damage rent for the period of unauthorized occupation from the applicant’s superannuation benefits.

3. Whether the COVID-19 pandemic and the related Ministry of Railways Circular (RBE No. 89/2020) regularized the applicant's occupation for the entire contested period.

The court applied the administrative rules governing the retention of railway accommodation, which permit a transferred employee to retain a quarter for a limited period subject to the approval of the competent authority; any retention beyond such period without explicit permission is classified as unauthorized.

The court also considered Ministry of Railways Circular No. RBE No. 89/2020 (No. E (G) 2020 RN 2 - COVID 19), which allowed for quarter retention specifically during the lockdown period due to the pandemic.

Furthermore, the court relied on the principle that retiral benefits may be adjusted against dues or damage rent arising from unauthorized occupation of government quarters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's occupation became unauthorized the moment the permissible period post-transfer expired without formal approval.

While the applicant claimed he had applied for an extension, the court noted there was no evidence of "temporary approval" or "administrative permission," especially since the application was returned for procedural lapses.

Regarding the COVID-19 defense, the Tribunal emphasized that the unauthorized occupation commenced on September 1, 2018—well before the pandemic’s onset in March 2020.

Therefore, the general circulars regarding COVID-19 relief could not retroactively regularize an occupation that was already unauthorized for over a year.

Additionally, the court observed that the applicant had himself requested the settlement of his retiral dues "after deduction of rent" in a correspondence dated October 22, 2022, which undermined his challenge to the deduction.

The court found no procedural illegality or arbitrariness in the respondents' actions and declined to interfere with the impugned letter or order a refund of the deducted amount.

No order as to costs was made.