Recovery of damage rent is unsustainable if the premises are dilapidated, locked, and unfit for human habitation.

The applicant, a Wireman Grade-I, was compulsorily retired on 30.01.2008 following a departmental proceeding.

His subsequent legal challenges to the retirement were dismissed by the Calcutta Bench of the CAT, the Jharkhand High Court, and the Supreme Court.

In 2015, the respondents recovered ₹2,24,497 from the applicant’s retiral benefits (DCRG, arrears of pay/DA, and pension relief) as "damage rent" for the alleged unauthorized occupation of a Railway quarter from 01.08.2007 to 29.08.2014.

The applicant contended that the quarter was in a dilapidated, unsafe condition, had crossed its codal life, and was actually locked and uninhabited since 2011.

The respondents argued the recovery was justified because the applicant only formally submitted a vacation certificate on 29.08.2014.

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in recovering "damage rent" from the applicant’s retiral benefits for a period during which the quarter was documented as dilapidated and uninhabitable.

2. Whether the mere non-submission of a formal quarter vacation certificate justifies the levy of penal rent when evidence suggests the premises were not in actual use or habitable.

The court applied principles governing the recovery of penal/damage rent for unauthorized occupation of government quarters under Railway rules and administrative law.

It emphasized the principle that damage rent can only be levied on habitable premises and that recovery from retiral benefits must be supported by factual occupation rather than mere procedural lapses.

The Tribunal also utilized the evidentiary value of disclosures made under the RTI Act, 2005, and internal correspondence (Electrical Department records) to determine the status of the property.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ own documentation contradicted their claim of unauthorized occupation. An internal letter from the Electrical Department dated 20.01.2015 explicitly stated the quarter had been "locked since January 2011 to August 2014," proving the applicant was not residing there.

Furthermore, RTI responses confirmed the quarters were in a "dilapidated condition," had "crossed their codal life," and were "unsafe for accommodation."

The Tribunal reasoned that if a quarter is uninhabitable and officially recognized as unsafe, the administration cannot justify the collection of penal rent.

It held that the applicant's failure to submit a formal vacation certificate in 2007–2008 was a procedural oversight that did not override the material fact that the premises were abandoned and unusable.

It held that the recovery of ₹2,24,497 from the applicant’s DCRG and pensionary benefits was unjustified under the specific facts of the case.

The respondents were directed to refund the total recovered amount to the applicant along with interest at the statutory GPF rate within three months.