ARJUN SINGH vs EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY on 16 October 2026

1. The Un Hajipur,

2. The Gen

3. The Divi Division

4. The Sen Upadhya

5. The Div Upadhya

6. The Sen Upadhya

7. The Sen Din Day

8. The Sen Danapur

For Appl For Resp

1. The in followin

CENTRAL ADMINISTRA PATNA BENCH, O.A. No. 050/00

Pro

C O R A M

ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

ngh, male, aged about 63 years, of Mohalla Bhawani Kuan, Bad atna-801105. Retired from the pos ral Railway, Gaya.

Versu

nion of India through General M , Vaishali-844118. neral Manager (P), East Central Rai isional Railway Manager, East Cen n, Din Dayal Upadhyay (UP)-23210 nior Divisional Personnel Officer, ay Division, Din Dayal Upadhyay ( visional Personnel Officer, Eas ay Division, Din Dayal Upadhyay ( ior Divisional Financial Manager, ay Division, Din Dayal Upadhyay ( nior Divisional Mechanical Engine al Upadhyay Division, Din Dayal U nior Divisional Engineer, East Cen r-801105.

licant:- Mr. Shekhar S

Sumit Kumar pondents:- Mr. T.N. Thak O R D Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C nstant OA has been filed by ng relief:-

i. To quash the order con E/Pen./Niptara/Samadi/20 the Divisional Personnel Off Dayal Upadhyay Division a

ATIVE TRIBUNAL , PATNA

Reserved on:- 01.10.2026 onounced on :- 16.10.2026 M CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] son of Late Ram Lakhan Singh, di Khagaul, PO and PS Khagaul, st of Office Superintendent, C&W,

………Applicant us Manager, East Central Railway, ilway, Hajipur, Vaishali-844118. ntral Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay

01. East Central Railway, Din Dayal (UP)-232101. st Central Railway, Din Dayal (UP)-232101. , East Central Railway, Din Dayal (UP) 232101. eer (C&W), East Central Railway, Upadhyay (UP) 232101. ntral Railway, Danapur Division,

……..Respondents Singh, ld. Sr. Adv. with Mr. and Ms. Shambhavi Singh kur, ld. Sr. CGSC E R Chandra, Member (A): y the applicant seeking the ntained in letter bearing no. 020 dated 04.03.2021 issued by fficer, East Central Railway, Din addressed to the Senior Divisional

, , , , y l l l , , . e . y n l Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

2. The bri and del 2.1 2.2

Financial Manager, East Upadhyay Division whereb Rs. 14,59,199/- (Rupees Fou One Hundred Ninety Nine Relief of the applicant on ac bill, excess leave without fol erroneous manner.

ii. To direct the respondent a DCRG of the applicant.

iii. To direct the respondents to DCRG for the undue delay ca

iv. Other relief/reliefs for which

ief facts of the case, as per th lineated as follows: 1 The applicant has superan Superintendent, C&W, East 28.02.2017. He has been pai Death-cum-Retirement Gratu date. He approached the Off Manager (Personnel), East Upadhyay Division various tim but no action has been taken came to know abo no.E/Pen/Niptara/Samadi/20 (Annexure A-1) issued by th Officer, Din Dayal Upadhya Senior Divisional Engineer Railway, Danapur whereby it the applicant was allotted a ho II at Loco Colony, Danapur w 16.08.2019. 2 It has further been stated in th has stayed in the said quarter without any valid permission a period 18.01.2000 to 15.08.2 the same be deducted from th may be paid. A copy of the applicant for filing objection, if

Central Railway, Din Dayal by it has been directed to deduct urteen Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand only) from DCRG and Dearness ccount of damage rent, electricity llowing due procedures of law in authorities to release the entire o pay interest over the amount of aused in its payment h the applicants are entitled. he instant O.A., are discussed nuated from post of Office t Central Railway, Gaya on id all his retiral dues but his uity has not been released till fice of the Divisional Railway Central Railway, Din Dayal mes for release of his gratuity n till date. Then the applicant out a letter bearing dated 13.10.2020 he Senior Divisional Personnel ay Division, addressed to the r/Coordination, East Central t has been communicated that ouse bearing no. 132/CD, Type which was vacated by him on he said letter that the applicant from 18.01.2000 to 15.08.2019 as such the damage rent for the 019 may be computed so that he DCRG and the rest amount said letter was marked to the f any.

l t d s y n e f d e n s l y l y t g l e l t e n t e t t e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.3 2.4 2.5

3 The applicant filed his objec 10.11.2020 (Annexure A-2) 18.01.2000 to 31.12.2012 he submitted application for all Deputy General Manager, E issued a certificate regarding Quarter at Hajipur. As per c Board, on account of the fact created Zone, the employees house in the division. The rete Danapur by the applicant was and the rent was realized from when the applicant was po Divisional Mechanical Engi 01.01.2013 to 28.02.2017, he allotment of railway quarter b as such he continued to re Danapur and the rent was rea Upon his superannuation the the treatment of his wife a Bombay for cancer as such th was vacated finally on 16.08.20 4 The applicant claims that he unauthorizedly rather he alw the competent authority for Railway Quarter after his sup state here that at no point of t Quarter the applicant was serv him that his stay in the Rai unauthorized nor he was eve vacating the Quarter. Rathe realized from him, which in Quarter by him was impli unauthorized. 5 The applicant has filed variou have not been responded till da ction through his letter dated clarifying thereby that between was working at Hajipur and lotment of quarter but Senior East Central Railway, Hajipur g non availability of Railway circular issued by the Railway t that the Hajipur was a newly s were permitted to keep the ention of the Railway Quarter at never objected by any authority m his salary as usual. Similarly, osted at Gaya under Senior neer (C&W), DDU between submitted his application for but no quarter was ever allotted etain the Railway Quarter at alized from his salary as usual. e applicant became engaged in at Tata Memorial Hospital at he Railway Quarter at Danapur

019. had never retained the quarter ways submitted applications to allowing him to stay in the perannuation. It is relevant to time ever till the vacation of the ved any notice/order intimating ilway Quarter in question was er served any letter/notice for er the usual rent was always ndicates that the retention of edly approved and was not us representations but the same ate. (Annexure A-4 series).

d n d r r y y y e t y , r n r d t . n t r r o e o e g s r s f t e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

6 After filing the aforesaid rep expecting that the concerned release his DCRG but instead receive copy of the E/Pen./Niptara/Samadi/2020 04.03.2021 (Annexure A-5 Personnel Officer, East Centra Division, addressed to the Manager, East Central Rai Division, whereby deductions from DCRG amount and dearn 7 It is settled proposition that arbitrarily withheld or no arbit can be made from the retira bounty, payable on the swe government. It is a right of compliance with the procedu sought to be withheld by the g permitted by the Rules. (Ref. AIR 2001 SC 3634, D S Naka SCC 305, Deokinandan Prasad 330). 8 It is settled proposition of rent/damages cannot be held unauthorized occupant under of Unauthorized Occupants) A as the Act) and recovery methodology adopted therein. not admitted dues, cannot be r 9 It is also submitted that the pr that a show-cause notice sho servant, stating the grounds on be undertaken, according to S rent and damages are to b procedure prescribed under Se stipulates that assessment of d resentations the applicant was respondent authorities would d of that he became shocked to order contained in no.

dated letter bearing

5) issued by the Divisional al Railway, Din Dayal Upadhyay Senior Divisional Financial ilway, Din Dayal Upadhyay have been ordered to be made ness relief. pensionary benefits cannot be trary and erroneous deductions al benefits, as these are 'not a eet will and pleasure of the f government employees, and ure is mandatory, if pension is government, to whatever extent Subrata Sen v. Union of India, ara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 d v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC f law that recovery of penal d unless one is declared as an r the Public Premises (Eviction Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to is effected as per law and . As the penal/damages etc. are recovered from the applicant. rocedure under the Act requires ould be issued to the railway n which eviction is proposed to Section 4 of the Act. Arrears of be assessed according to the ection 7 of the Act. Section 7(2) damages for use and occupation

s d o . g l y l y e e s a e d s t ,

C l n n o d e s y o f e ) n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.1 2.1 2.1

3. Per con written of premises may be undertak which the occupant is require the time specified in the order that a show-cause be issued b Estate Officer under Section damages. Since Rule 16(8)(e) the applicability of procedure u it is only after this procedure due (damages and rent) can be ascertained. Only after this pr can be adjusted against the due 10 It is further submitted that th a monetary demand under c years from the day the money the Schedule to the Limitatio Schedule stipulates three yea become due) as the limitation rent. In this light, it is apparen rent and damages is hopelessly 11 It is also submitted that the contained in the letter dated dues for excess leave. Howeve had 4 surplus leaves as on t 11.02.2017 which is evident fro sheet of the applicant duly Engineer (G&W), East Centra Divisional Mechanical Enginee (AnnexureA-6) 12 The applicant has already s treatment of his ailing wife wh on account of non-payment applicant suffered a lot. This r interest on the payable amoun Original Application. ntra, the Respondents have n statements in which it was st ken by the Estate Officer, after ed to pay such damages within

r. Thus, this provision requires before an order is passed by the 7(2) that requires payment of ) of the Pension Rules triggers under Section 7 of the Act, 1971 e has been fully complied with e considered to be assessed and rocedure is followed, the DCRG es. he limitation period for making contractual agreement is three y becomes due, as evident from on Act, 1963. Article 52 of the ars (from the date the arrears n period for claiming arrears of nt that this claim for arrears of y time-barred. e aforesaid impugned order as d 04.03.2021 also includes the er, the fact is that the applicant the date of his retirement i.e. om the bare perusal of the leave signed by the Senior Section al Railway, Gaya and Assistant er, East Central Railway, Gaya. spent his entire savings on the ho is suffering from cancer and t of his legitimate dues the renders the respondents to pay nt of DCRG. Hence, the present contested the case by filing tated that:

r n s e f s h d G g e m e s f f s e t . e n t . e d e y t g Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4

1 The respondents have submit from Railway Services on 28.0 Superintendent but did not 132/CD, Loco Colony, Dan retirement. He vacated the sa According to the responden occupying the quarter with 18.01.2000, even after his tran and thereafter to Gaya un respondents have stated that any order or document issue permitting him to retain the qu 2 The respondents have further was asked, vide letter dated 1 permission for retaining the failed to produce any such doc submitted a representatio respondents contend that it permission order for retenti retirement. 3 The respondents further su Death-cum-Retirement Gratu because he failed to vacate th after retirement, as required (Pension) Rules, 1993. They ha of the said Rules to justify th other outstanding dues from benefits and Dearness Relief. A rent of Rs. 14,26,515/-, electric excess leave credited amo recoverable from the applicant applicant had been credited w reflected in the leave-sheet d statement. 4 The respondents have denie regarding the illegality of tted that the applicant retired 02.2017 from the post of Office vacate Railway Quarter No. napur, immediately after his aid quarter only on 16.08.2019. nts, the applicant had been hout valid permission since nsfer from Danapur to Hajipur nder the DDU Division. The the applicant failed to produce ed by the competent authority uarter. r submitted that the applicant 10.08.2020, to submit proof of Railway quarter. However, he cument. Although the applicant on dated 17.08.2020, the t did not contain any valid ion of the quarter up to his ubmitted that the applicant's uity (DCRG) was withheld he Railway quarter immediately d under the Railway Services ave relied upon Rules 15 and 16 e recovery of damage rent and m the applicant's retirement According to them, the damage city charges of Rs. 29,814/-, and ounting to Rs. 2,870/- are

t. They have also stated that the with 15 days of excess leave, as details annexed to the written ed the applicant's allegations f the deductions and have

d e . s . n e r e e y t f e t e d s s d y s d t e d e e s n s e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 3.5

4. Ld. cou reiterat 4.1 4.2 4.3

maintained that the recove applicable Railway rules with They have further submitted Public Premises (Eviction of 1971, is not applicable to the p its own rules governing such m 5 In view of the above subm contended that the applicant delay in vacating the Railway withholding of his retirement prayed that the original applic merit and not sustainable in la unsel for applicant has filed ting the same facts, he stated t It is wrong to say that the app the Railway Quarter witho competent authority. It is ne application dated 27.07.2004 by the applicant to the Gener Central Railway, Hajipur for was duly endorsed by the Seni The respondents have erroneo of the Rule-15 of the Railway It is relevant to point out tha of the Railway Services (Pe regarding recovery of damag shall be subject to adjudica Officers appointed under the Unauthorized Persons) Act, 19 It is also stated that the appli applications regarding quar Railway Authorities have fai single chit of paper by which Quarter by the applicant as u they cannot be allowed to take ery is permissible under the hout the pensioner's consent. that the procedure under the Unauthorised Occupants) Act, present case, as the Railway has matters. issions, the respondents have himself is responsible for the y quarter and the consequent benefits. They have, therefore, cation be dismissed as devoid of aw. d the rejoinder in which, by that: plicant continued occupation of out any permission from the ecessary to bring on record the 4 (Annexure A-7) submitted ral Manager (Mechanical), East retention of the Quarter which ior Officials of the Railway. ously relied on sub rule-1 and 2 Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. at as per sub-rule-8E of Rule-16 ension) Rules, 1993, disputes ges from ex-Railway employee ation by the concerned Estate e Public Premises (Eviction of

971. icant has always submitted due rter and on the other hand iled to bring on record even a they may term the retention of nauthorized. Now, at this stage e benefit of their own wrong.

e . e , s e e t , f y f e e d t h

.

s e e f e d a f e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

5. After h perusal conside conclus 5.1 F a p G q r o d q b a p r c a t 5.2 T a ( p b s i p q p a c t r hearing the learned counsel l of the material available b ered the matter in its entire sions: From the facts available on r applicant retired from Railway s post of Office Superintendent, Gaya. However, he continued to question and vacated it only on retained the Railway accommod of time even after his retirem disputed the fact of such occup quarter was finally vacated. His been retaining the quarter with authorities, that he had sub permission for its retention, a regularly deducted from his sala circumstances of the no accommodation at Hajipur and to justify his continued occupati The applicant has contended application dated 27.07.2004 (Mechanical), East Central permission to retain the quarte been endorsed by senior Rail submission or endorsement of itself, establish that the comp permission for retention of the question. The applicant has n producing a specific and va authority, that he was autho continuously after his transfe thereafter to Gaya, and even 28.02.2017 until 16.08.2019. S rent was deducted from his salar ls for both the parties and before this Tribunal, I have ety and arrived at following record, it is evident that the service on 28.02.2017 from the , C&W, East Central Railway, o occupy the Railway quarter in 16.08.2019. Thus, the applicant dation for a considerable period ment. The applicant has not pation or the date on which the main contention is that he had h the knowledge of the Railway bmitted applications seeking and that the normal rent was ary. He has also relied upon the on-availability of Railway his subsequent posting at Gaya ion. d that he had submitted an 4 to the General Manager Railway, Hajipur, seeking er, and that the application had lway officials. However, mere f an application does not, by petent authority had granted quarter for the entire period in not been able to establish, by alid order of the competent orized to retain the quarter er from Danapur to Hajipur, after his superannuation on Similarly, the fact that normal ry does not, by itself, prove that

d e g e e , n t d t e d y g s e y a n r g d e y d n y t r , n l t Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench h n a a o r d M " r t t c f c f 5.3 F d t a o c b r u v a 5.4 T t r r c v t t g his occupation was authorized fo normal rent and permissi accommodation are two separ automatically be treated as proo of unauthorised retention is an rent has been computed mathe discretionary statutory tariff sla Master Circular No. 49, there re "unliquidated damage" that requ recording of evidence by an Es the Public Premises Act. It is a that “admission is the best ev compel the performance of frustra facit). Mandating a circumstances would be a redu formalism. Furthermore, the mere fact tha deduct standard license fees, ele the applicant's salary does not against statutory rules, nor doe occupation. The deduction of consequence of the physical co by the occupant. It cannot regularization or waiver of the under Master Circular No. 49. A vested right to sit over public authorisation. The applicant has further conte to him declaring his occupatio respondents never directed him retirement. However, the absen cannot be treated as conclusive valid right to retain the Railwa the disputed period. The appli that his continued occupation granted under the applicable r or the entire period. Payment of ion to retain Government rate matters, and one cannot of of the other. Since, the period admitted fact, and the damage ematically using the rigid, non- abs under the Railway Board's emains no factual ambiguity or uires a separate adjudication or state Officer under Section 7 of well-established maxim of law vidence” and the law does not a useless formality (lex nil Section 7 inquiry under these undant exercise in procedural at the department continued to ectricity, or water charges from t create an equitable estoppel es it condone an unauthorized f utility fees is a necessary onsumption of public resources be construed as an implied e liability to pay damage rent A public servant cannot claim a premises indefinitely without ended that no notice was issued on unauthorized and that the to vacate the quarter before his ce of an earlier notice, by itself, e proof that the applicant had a ay accommodation throughout cant was required to establish was supported by permission rules. The respondents, on the

f t t d e - s r r f w t l e l o m l d y s d t a t d e s , a t h n e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench o l r p t t c 5.5 I r t o a S t b a r p u f r a R

other hand, have stated that t letter dated 10.08.2020, to pro retention of the quarter, but he f permission order. In these circu that his occupation was implie the Railway authorities contin cannot be accepted as sufficient I have also considered the a respondents could not recover the procedure prescribed under of Unauthorised Occupants) Ac and 7 of the said Act, read with Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. the damage rent could be re benefits only after the compete and determined the damages respondents, however, have con permissible under the applicab upon Rule 15(for adjustment from his DCRG) and 16 recovery of dues pertain accommodation) of the R Rules, 1993 which is as under: Rule 15

“(i) It shall be the d ascertain and asses dues payable by a retirement.

(ii) The Railway ascertained and outstanding till th death of the railway against the amount or death gratuity recovery of the d railway servant accordance with th (4).

the applicant was asked, vide oduce proof of permission for failed to produce any such valid umstances, the applicant's plea edly authorised merely because nued to deduct normal rent proof of lawful retention. applicant's argument that the damage rent without following r the Public Premises (Eviction ct, 1971, particularly Sections 4 h Rule 16(8)(e) of the Railway The applicant has argued that ecovered from his retirement ent Estate Officer had assessed in accordance with law. The ntended that the recovery was ble Railway pension rules i.e., of the recoverable amount 6(8)(a) (Adjustment and ning to Govt. or Railway Railway Services (Pension)

duty of the Head of Office to ss Government or Railway a railway servant due for or Government dues as assessed, which remain he date of retirement or y servant, shall be adjusted t of the retirement gratuity or terminal gratuity and dues against the retiring shall be regulated in he provisions of sub-rule

e r d a e t e g n y t t d e s , t d y ) o y r s n r d y d g n e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.6 I r p r t a l b r ( a

(iii) For the pur expression "Railwa includes:

a. Dues per Government arrears of lice

b. Dues other Railway accommodatio house-buildin other advance allowances, le such as Post premium, lo collection in f stores) caused Railway as a fraud on the p while he was i

Rule 16(8)(a)

In case where a rail vacated after super servant or after ces as on voluntary retirement, medica then, the full amou death gratuity or provident fund, as withheld.

In this regard, it is necessar respondents' authority to recov procedure required for dete recoverable. The fact is undispu the quarter beyond his ret authorization. Equally, the ap liability arises merely because because the Railway authoritie rent. The applicable provisio (Pension) Rules, 1993, includin and applied in accordance wit rposes of this rule, the ay or Government dues" rtaining to Railway or accommodation including ense fee, if any; r than those pertaining to or Government on, namely balance of ng or conveyance or any e, overpayment of pay and eave salary or other dues Office or Life Insurance osses (including short freight charges shortage in d to the Government or the a result, if negligence or part of the railway servant in service.” lway accommodation is not rannuation of the railway ssation of his service such retirement, compulsory al invalidation, or death, unt of retirement gratuity, r special contribution to the case may be, shall be ry to distinguish between the ver Government dues and the rmining the amount legally uted that the applicant retained irement without any lawful pplicant cannot claim that no e he disputes the demand or es had earlier accepted normal ons of the Railway Services ng Rule 16(8)(e), must be read th their terms. The applicant's e " r g o t f y d s e t n e r t t y h y , , o e e e y d l o r l s d s Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench o a c t p c d t S a b r m l R c s b 5.7 R P T p a f t p p S s e v i o 5.8 I a t objection regarding the requ assessment under the Public P considered in the light of the re the material placed on record presented, the applicant has continuing authorisation for ret date of its vacation. Addressing the field is completely occupie Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 amendments). Rule 16(1) expl bounden duty of every retirin railway dues, and Rule 16(2) mechanism to automatically license fee" and "damage r Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) consent. Therefore, the respond statutory power to realize qua benefits. Regarding the non-adherence Premises (Eviction of Unauthor Tribunal is fully cognizant of penal rent cannot normally be administration if the liability factually disputed. The very firs this is an act for eviction of un public premises and matters inc purpose of this act is eviction o Section 7 of the Public Premise shield to ensure due process th established that the Governme vacated, of course, in a delayed issue for adjudication. The only of damage rent. I have also considered the ju applicant and find that they ar the facts of the instant case whe uirement of adjudication and Premises Act must therefore be elevant statutory provisions and

d. Nevertheless, on the facts not established a valid and tention of the quarter up to the g the statutory rule framework, ed by Rule 16 of the Railway (and its subsequent statutory licitly mandates that it is the ng railway servant to clear all ) provides a robust statutory withhold or recover "unpaid rent" from the Death-cum- without requiring a separate dents possess the foundational arter liabilities from terminal to Section 7 of the Public rised Occupants) Act, 1971, this the settled legal position that e unilaterally quantified by the is arbitrary, unliquidated, or st line of the said Act says that nauthorized occupants from the cidental thereto. So, the primary of such unauthorized occupant. es Act provides a quasi-judicial hrough an Estate Officer. It is ent Accommodation has been d manner so eviction is not the issue is with regard to recovery dicial citations quoted by the re clearly distinguishable from ere the unauthorized occupation

d e d s d e , y y e l y d - e l l c s t e r t e y . l s n e y e m n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench i a G r 5.9 T t b A H p t a e e c T h a O 5.10 h r b r e a t b t s a w t t O

is clearly proved. There is no authorization to prove the c Government accommodation b retirement. The applicant has also challeng that the demand for damage beginning on 18.01.2000, and Article 52 of the Schedule t However, the mere fact that th period does not, without furthe the claim, the dates on which th applicable legal provisions, co entire demand is time-barr established, on the material pla claim is liable to be rejected sole This unauthorized occupation h his retirement. Accordingly, this as sufficient, by itself, to grant t Original Application. As regards the claim relating has contended that he had four retirement and has relied upon been signed by the concer respondents, on the other hand excess leave had been credited amount of Rs. 2,870/- was reco there is a dispute between the pa balance and the amount recove this regard has to be considere service records and the appl assertion of either party can without proper verification of t the dispute regarding excess lea that the applicant is entitled to Original Application.

paper/document to prove any continued occupation of the by the applicant even after his ged the recovery on the ground rent relates to a long period, is barred by limitation under to the Limitation Act, 1963. he demand relates to an earlier er examination of the nature of e amounts became due, and the onclusively establish that the ed. The applicant has not aced before us, that the entire ely on the ground of limitation. had been continuing even after s contention cannot be accepted the relief sought in the present g to excess leave, the applicant surplus leaves at the time of his n the leave sheet stated to have rned Railway officials. The d, have asserted that 15 days of d to the applicant and that an overable on this account. Thus, arties regarding the actual leave erable. The applicant's claim in ed on the basis of the original icable leave rules. The mere not be treated as conclusive the relevant records. However, ave does not, by itself, establish the entire relief claimed in the

y e s d , r . r f e e t e . r d t t s e e f n , e n l e e , h e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.11 I s r M s h r p r p a i b t r b 5.12 T

e a m w r c h w u d a h l r h u p

I have also considered the app suffering from cancer and that, remain engaged in her treatme Mumbai, which caused delay in such circumstances, though d humanitarian grounds, cannot right to retain Government acco permitted under the applicable reliance upon judicial decisio pensionary benefits does not m arising out of the retention o incapable of adjustment from r benefits cannot be withheld or r time, a retired employee canno recovery of dues merely becaus be made from his retirement ben The applicant has sought q 04.03.2021, by which the respo 14,59,199/- towards damage excess leave, along with a direct and pay interest for the d maintained that the applicant without valid permission and represents dues recoverable consideration of the rival submi has not established his claim th was duly authorised for the entir upon applications submitted to deduction of normal rent from h absence of proof of the necessar his continued occupation was limitation, the alleged exces requirement of proceedings un have also not been established, us, as sufficient grounds for gra present Original Application.

plicant's plea that his wife was after his retirement, he had to ent at Tata Memorial Hospital, vacating the quarter. However, deserving of consideration on by themselves create a legal ommodation beyond the period rules. Similarly, the applicant's ons concerning the nature of mean that all Government dues of official accommodation are retirement benefits. Pensionary reduced arbitrarily; at the same ot claim immunity from lawful se such recovery is proposed to nefits. quashing of the letter dated ndents directed recovery of Rs. rent, electricity charges and tion to release his entire DCRG delay. The respondents have retained the Railway quarter d that the amount claimed from him. On an overall issions, I find that the applicant hat his retention of the quarter re disputed period. His reliance the Railway authorities and the his salary is not sufficient, in the ry permission, to establish that lawful. His grounds regarding ss-leave calculation and the nder the Public Premises Act , on the material placed before anting the reliefs sought in the

s o , , n l d s f s e y e l o d . d G e r d l t r e e e t g e t e e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 5.13 e l D t A r s 5.14

pk/-

In view of the foregoing discuss establish a sufficient legal bas letter dated 04.03.2021 or for di DCRG along with interest. Ther to interfere with the impugned Accordingly, the Original Appli relief, if any, shall stand vacat stand disposed of with this final There shall be no order as to

(

O.A. No. 050/00471/2021 sion, the applicant has failed to is for quashing the impugned irecting the release of the entire re is no reason for this Tribunal d decision of the respondents. ication is dismissed. Interim ted. Pending MAs, if any, also order. costs. (Kumar Rajesh Chandra)

Member (A)

o d e l . m o ) Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI