it2025_00619 — Applicants herein, six in number were allowed to occupy the Railway quarters allotted to them when they were working in Sholapur. When they were transferred to Wadi, the quarters allotted to them at Sholapur was allowed to be retained in suppression of IREM, Para. 1711. But all of a sudden in the year 2014, they were asked to vacate the quarters and pay the penal rent for occupying the quarters at Sholapur unauthorizedly as they were posted at Wadi. The whole case was examined by the Tribunal in

IT Rules

Applicants herein, six in number were allowed to occupy the Railway quarters allotted to them when they were working in Sholapur. When they were transferred to Wadi, the quarters allotted to them at Sholapur was allowed to be retained in suppression of IREM, Para. 1711. But all of a sudden in the year 2014, they were asked to vacate the quarters and pay the penal rent for occupying the quarters at Sholapur unauthorizedly as they were posted at Wadi. The whole case was examined by the Tribunal in this OA and held that the Applicants who were allotted the quarters at Sholapur came to know that they have to vacate the quarters. No show-cause notice was issued before evicting them from the quarters at Sholapur. Hence the Respondents are barred from recovery of damage rent as per letter, dated 31-3-2015 and amount, if already recovered, the same should be returned to the Applicants in 4 weeks' time on vacation of quarters by the Applicants. However, no interest is payable on the recovered amount — This chunk pertains to an original application (OA No. 19 of 2016) concerning six railway employees who were allowed to retain their quarters at Sholapur when they were transferred to Wadi, but were ... — Facts:There are six Applicants in this OA.They are Railway employees in Group 'C' in different grades. As the prayer of all the employees are same, the OA is disposed of by this common judgment. The Applicants herein were transferred to Wadi station from Sholapur Division where they were having Railway quarters. It is stated that they were allowed to retain the quarters when they were transferred to Wadi station in suppression of IREM, Para.1711. They were also told that they will not be charged penal rent from 2003 as the quarters at Wadi is vacant due to non-availability of Group 'C' staff. But all of a sudden in 2015, they were asked to pay a penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the quarters at Sholapur. Hence this OA is filed to quash the impugned order directing the Applicants to vacate the quarters at Sholapur since the year 2001 as unauthorized occupation and not to recover the damage rent from 16-4-2003 with retrospective effect and to refund the amount recovered with interest at 12%. It is enough if the final appreciation of the Tribunal is brought out. The Tribunal brought out the case history of this OA. The Tribunal noted that the Applicants were allowed to retain their allotted quarters at Sholapur when they were transferred to Wadi by letter, dated 20-8-2001. However, on 16-4-2003, a decision was taken to continue the benefit. This decision was taken due to shortage of quarters for Group 'C' staff at Shahabad. For Group ‘D'staff also, this concession was not given as quarters at Shahabad was surplus to Group 'D' employees. The letter, dated 16-4-2003 is reproduced for clarity in this connection. As for the above decision,11 employees were benefited including the 6 employees in this OA. The authorities stated that the occupation of the Railway quarters by the employees at Sholapur is in violation of order for not vacating the quarters. Notice was given to the Applicants to pay damage rent for unauthorized occupation of quarters at Wadi, as per the decision of Sr. DPO, R-4 herein. In continuation of the letter, dated 21-4-2014, for not vacating the quarter, paying penal rent, another reminder was issued on 14-5-2005. This is the genesis of impugned recovery action of the Respondents from the six applicants. Out of 11 employees, only 8 employees are occupying the quarters unauthorizedly as some retired, expired or vacated the quarter. Out of 8 employees, four of them are Applicants Details of allotment of quarters in dispute is brought out and issued on 16-4-2003 and was never dealt with till 2012. Applicant No. 2 was issued the quarters allotment by Chief Yardmaster who vacated the quarters on retirement on 30-6-1991. This allotment order was issued before the orders, dated 29-10-2001 and 16-4-2003. Allotment of quarters to the Applicant No. 3 by order, dated 11-10-2006 as per ADEN, Sholapur paying normal rent with effect from 11-10-2006. In respect of the Applicant No. 5, allotment order was issued on 1-9-2000 by the Housing Committee held on 29-8-2000 before the order, dated 29-10-2001 and 16-4-2003. Quarter allotment to Applicant No. 6 was issued by order, dated 15-9-2005 on medical ground on out-of-turn basis. Even though allotment of quarters date to Applicant No. 4 is not available, it is shown to have been allotted on 12-3-2004. Applicant No. 4 was allotted the quarters in March, 2004 before 16-4-2003. Thus the quarters were allowed to be retained allotted before 16-4-2003 and after also in violation of their own orders. Thus penalizing the Applicants by levying penal rent is violation by Respondents themselves. There is no enforcement order to levy penal rent till 2012 even though it is said that levy of penal rent was communicated to all offices and Housing Committee and to the unions along with order of 2001. The Respondents woke up only in 2012 about the non-compliance of their order, dated 16-4-2003. Nothing on record to show that any action was taken between 16-4-2003 to 13-9-2012 to enforce the order, dated 16-4-2003. The non-enforcement order, dated 16-4-2003 was done by the Divisional Office and not by Subordinate Offices. Before asking the employee to vacate the quarters, no show-cause notice was issued in implementation of the order, dated 25-9-2013, 21-4-2014, 2-5-2014 and 14-5-2014. The Applicants are not aware of their violation of orders of DRM. Even if such vacation order is put up in the notice board, the Respondents themselves allowed the retention of quarters Damage rent from the Applicants with effect from 17-4-2003 was taken by Respondents in 2013-14 only without prior notice to the Applicants. Since the Respondents continue to issue allotment order of quarters even after 16-4-2003, the show-cause notice for vacation and recovery of rent was necessary and Respondents failed in that respect to adhere to principles of natural justice. Hence the Applicants are not responsible for the lapse of Respondents who acted in violation of Para. 1711 of IREM. Hence the Respondents act first in violation of their own orders which cannot be ignored. The Respondents should first issue a show-cause notice before ordering damage rent Actual recovery of damage rent from 11 employees including to the 6 Applicants herein has been suo motu implemented in May, 2014. The Applicants have filed the OA in January 2016 The Respondents should have brought to the notice of non-vacation of the quarters to Applicants which was not done. Hence the Applicants relied upon the judgment of CAT, Principal Bench in the case of Sahadeo Sadoo v. Union of India and others [ 2003 (3) ATJ 89 ], wherein it has been held that principles of natural justice should be adhered to while issuing impugned orders of recovery on account of subletting of Government accommodation. The Applicants' efforts to convince the Respondents failed and they could not get any relief after approaching the union also. Thus enough action was taken by the Applicants to convince their view, no effort was taken by the Respondents. Hence this OA is not affected by delay and laches and is maintainable. Reliance by Respondents in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma, etc v. Uday Chand Kamal and others [1999 (2) SC Service Law, judgment-294 ] wherein it is said that where there is delay and no delay condonation petition is filed, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on merits is not applicable here in this case Reliance by the Applicants on the judgment of UoI v. Krishna Murthy and others [1989 (11) ATC 892 ] by Applicants that rules with retrospective operation is valid, if the statute empowers for the same, provided vested rights are not taken is however, not correct or relevant. If every division, makes rules in regard to suspension of IREM provision, there would be chaos. Orders should be within the provisions of law. In the present case, recovery of damage rent is subject to principles of natural justice. In this case, the Applicants were allowed to retain quarters after 16-4-2003. The Respondents are first responsible for their delayed action. As no show-cause notice was issued before asking the Applicants to vacate the quarters, the Respondents themselves violated their own rules. Hence automatic recovery of damage rent does not arise. The Applicants contend that in 43 such cases, no damage rent was charged which the Respondents denied and hence there is no discrimination against the Applicants.

IT Rules

Applicants herein, six in number were allowed to occupy the Railway quarters allotted to them when they were working in Sholapur. When they were transferred to Wadi, the quarters allotted to them at Sholapur was allowed to be retained in suppression of IREM, Para. 1711. But all of a sudden in the year 2014, they were asked to vacate the quarters and pay the penal rent for occupying the quarters at Sholapur unauthorizedly as they were posted at Wadi. The whole case was examined by the Tribunal in this OA and held that the Applicants who were allotted the quarters at Sholapur came to know that they have to vacate the quarters. No show-cause notice was issued before evicting them from the quarters at Sholapur. Hence the Respondents are barred from recovery of damage rent as per letter, dated 31-3-2015 and amount, if already recovered, the same should be returned to the Applicants in 4 weeks' time on vacation of quarters by the Applicants. However, no interest is payable on the recovered amount — This chunk pertains to an original application (OA No. 19 of 2016) concerning six railway employees who were allowed to retain their quarters at Sholapur when they were transferred to Wadi, but were ... — Facts:There are six Applicants in this OA.They are Railway employees in Group 'C' in different grades. As the prayer of all the employees are same, the OA is disposed of by this common judgment. The Applicants herein were transferred to Wadi station from Sholapur Division where they were having Railway quarters. It is stated that they were allowed to retain the quarters when they were transferred to Wadi station in suppression of IREM, Para.1711. They were also told that they will not be charged penal rent from 2003 as the quarters at Wadi is vacant due to non-availability of Group 'C' staff. But all of a sudden in 2015, they were asked to pay a penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the quarters at Sholapur. Hence this OA is filed to quash the impugned order directing the Applicants to vacate the quarters at Sholapur since the year 2001 as unauthorized occupation and not to recover the damage rent from 16-4-2003 with retrospective effect and to refund the amount recovered with interest at 12%. It is enough if the final appreciation of the Tribunal is brought out. The Tribunal brought out the case history of this OA. The Tribunal noted that the Applicants were allowed to retain their allotted quarters at Sholapur when they were transferred to Wadi by letter, dated 20-8-2001. However, on 16-4-2003, a decision was taken to continue the benefit. This decision was taken due to shortage of quarters for Group 'C' staff at Shahabad. For Group ‘D'staff also, this concession was not given as quarters at Shahabad was surplus to Group 'D' employees. The letter, dated 16-4-2003 is reproduced for clarity in this connection. As for the above decision,11 employees were benefited including the 6 employees in this OA. The authorities stated that the occupation of the Railway quarters by the employees at Sholapur is in violation of order for not vacating the quarters. Notice was given to the Applicants to pay damage rent for unauthorized occupation of quarters at Wadi, as per the decision of Sr. DPO, R-4 herein. In continuation of the letter, dated 21-4-2014, for not vacating the quarter, paying penal rent, another reminder was issued on 14-5-2005. This is the genesis of impugned recovery action of the Respondents from the six applicants. Out of 11 employees, only 8 employees are occupying the quarters unauthorizedly as some retired, expired or vacated the quarter. Out of 8 employees, four of them are Applicants Details of allotment of quarters in dispute is brought out and issued on 16-4-2003 and was never dealt with till 2012. Applicant No. 2 was issued the quarters allotment by Chief Yardmaster who vacated the quarters on retirement on 30-6-1991. This allotment order was issued before the orders, dated 29-10-2001 and 16-4-2003. Allotment of quarters to the Applicant No. 3 by order, dated 11-10-2006 as per ADEN, Sholapur paying normal rent with effect from 11-10-2006. In respect of the Applicant No. 5, allotment order was issued on 1-9-2000 by the Housing Committee held on 29-8-2000 before the order, dated 29-10-2001 and 16-4-2003. Quarter allotment to Applicant No. 6 was issued by order, dated 15-9-2005 on medical ground on out-of-turn basis. Even though allotment of quarters date to Applicant No. 4 is not available, it is shown to have been allotted on 12-3-2004. Applicant No. 4 was allotted the quarters in March, 2004 before 16-4-2003. Thus the quarters were allowed to be retained allotted before 16-4-2003 and after also in violation of their own orders. Thus penalizing the Applicants by levying penal rent is violation by Respondents themselves. There is no enforcement order to levy penal rent till 2012 even though it is said that levy of penal rent was communicated to all offices and Housing Committee and to the unions along with order of 2001. The Respondents woke up only in 2012 about the non-compliance of their order, dated 16-4-2003. Nothing on record to show that any action was taken between 16-4-2003 to 13-9-2012 to enforce the order, dated 16-4-2003. The non-enforcement order, dated 16-4-2003 was done by the Divisional Office and not by Subordinate Offices. Before asking the employee to vacate the quarters, no show-cause notice was issued in implementation of the order, dated 25-9-2013, 21-4-2014, 2-5-2014 and 14-5-2014. The Applicants are not aware of their violation of orders of DRM. Even if such vacation order is put up in the notice board, the Respondents themselves allowed the retention of quarters Damage rent from the Applicants with effect from 17-4-2003 was taken by Respondents in 2013-14 only without prior notice to the Applicants. Since the Respondents continue to issue allotment order of quarters even after 16-4-2003, the show-cause notice for vacation and recovery of rent was necessary and Respondents failed in that respect to adhere to principles of natural justice. Hence the Applicants are not responsible for the lapse of Respondents who acted in violation of Para. 1711 of IREM. Hence the Respondents act first in violation of their own orders which cannot be ignored. The Respondents should first issue a show-cause notice before ordering damage rent Actual recovery of damage rent from 11 employees including to the 6 Applicants herein has been suo motu implemented in May, 2014. The Applicants have filed the OA in January 2016 The Respondents should have brought to the notice of non-vacation of the quarters to Applicants which was not done. Hence the Applicants relied upon the judgment of CAT, Principal Bench in the case of Sahadeo Sadoo v. Union of India and others [ 2003 (3) ATJ 89 ], wherein it has been held that principles of natural justice should be adhered to while issuing impugned orders of recovery on account of subletting of Government accommodation. The Applicants' efforts to convince the Respondents failed and they could not get any relief after approaching the union also. Thus enough action was taken by the Applicants to convince their view, no effort was taken by the Respondents. Hence this OA is not affected by delay and laches and is maintainable. Reliance by Respondents in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma, etc v. Uday Chand Kamal and others [1999 (2) SC Service Law, judgment-294 ] wherein it is said that where there is delay and no delay condonation petition is filed, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on merits is not applicable here in this case Reliance by the Applicants on the judgment of UoI v. Krishna Murthy and others [1989 (11) ATC 892 ] by Applicants that rules with retrospective operation is valid, if the statute empowers for the same, provided vested rights are not taken is however, not correct or relevant. If every division, makes rules in regard to suspension of IREM provision, there would be chaos. Orders should be within the provisions of law. In the present case, recovery of damage rent is subject to principles of natural justice. In this case, the Applicants were allowed to retain quarters after 16-4-2003. The Respondents are first responsible for their delayed action. As no show-cause notice was issued before asking the Applicants to vacate the quarters, the Respondents themselves violated their own rules. Hence automatic recovery of damage rent does not arise. The Applicants contend that in 43 such cases, no damage rent was charged which the Respondents denied and hence there is no discrimination against the Applicants.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text