dofp2024_00394 — Compulsory Retirement of the Applicant from Railway service and treating the period after compulsory retirement reckoned as unauthorized occupation is set aside by the High Court of Bombay cancelling the order of the Tribunal and hence damage rent should not be recovered from the Applicant for the period of his occupation of the Railway quarter treating his occupation as unauthorized

DoFP

Compulsory Retirement of the Applicant from Railway service and treating the period after compulsory retirement reckoned as unauthorized occupation is set aside by the High Court of Bombay cancelling the order of the Tribunal and hence damage rent should not be recovered from the Applicant for the period of his occupation of the Railway quarter treating his occupation as unauthorized — This chunk is a part of a court order that set aside the compulsory retirement of an applicant from the Railway service, treating his subsequent occupation of the Railway quarter as authorized rather... — Facts: The Applicant was compulsorily retired by General Manager, Central Railway, R-1 on 9-7-2003 recovering ₹ 1,50,182 towards damaged rent for alleged unauthorized occupation of Railway quarters. Hence this OA is filed for setting aside that order and to continue him in service. The Applicant challenged that order in the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 314 of 2005 which was dismissed by Order, dated 30-1-2006. Against that order, he filed a Writ Petition No. 1540 of 2008 which was allowed. Review Petition No. 140 of 2015, dated 26-11-2015 held that from 9-7-2003 (the date of penalty order of compulsory retirement) to 20-4-2015, the Applicant should be treated as in continuous service It is enough to reproduce the consequence of the order of the High Court. “High Court set aside the order of the compulsory retirement and further held that the period from the date of the penalty order of compulsory retirement till the date of his retirement i.e. from 9-7-2003 to 20-4-2015, the Applicant will be treated as in continued service. In view of the said order of High Court granting continuity of service till the date of retirement,it was not open to the Respondents to recover ₹ 1,50,182. The occupation of the Applicant in Railway quarters cannot be held to be unauthorized in view of the judgment of the High Court. As such, the question of payment of damage rent does not arise”.

DoFP

Compulsory Retirement of the Applicant from Railway service and treating the period after compulsory retirement reckoned as unauthorized occupation is set aside by the High Court of Bombay cancelling the order of the Tribunal and hence damage rent should not be recovered from the Applicant for the period of his occupation of the Railway quarter treating his occupation as unauthorized — This chunk is a part of a court order that set aside the compulsory retirement of an applicant from the Railway service, treating his subsequent occupation of the Railway quarter as authorized rather... — Facts: The Applicant was compulsorily retired by General Manager, Central Railway, R-1 on 9-7-2003 recovering ₹ 1,50,182 towards damaged rent for alleged unauthorized occupation of Railway quarters. Hence this OA is filed for setting aside that order and to continue him in service. The Applicant challenged that order in the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 314 of 2005 which was dismissed by Order, dated 30-1-2006. Against that order, he filed a Writ Petition No. 1540 of 2008 which was allowed. Review Petition No. 140 of 2015, dated 26-11-2015 held that from 9-7-2003 (the date of penalty order of compulsory retirement) to 20-4-2015, the Applicant should be treated as in continuous service It is enough to reproduce the consequence of the order of the High Court. “High Court set aside the order of the compulsory retirement and further held that the period from the date of the penalty order of compulsory retirement till the date of his retirement i.e. from 9-7-2003 to 20-4-2015, the Applicant will be treated as in continued service. In view of the said order of High Court granting continuity of service till the date of retirement,it was not open to the Respondents to recover ₹ 1,50,182. The occupation of the Applicant in Railway quarters cannot be held to be unauthorized in view of the judgment of the High Court. As such, the question of payment of damage rent does not arise”.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text