Bala Krishnan vs WESTERN RAILWAY on 3 November 2026

1. Bala Krishnan S/o Late Shri Nadhan

Age : 34 Years, Serving as CLC

In the office of the respondents,

Residing at : 572/A, Type-2,

New Railway Colony, Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad – 380019.

……………………. Applicant.

(By Advocate: Ms. Himanshi Balodi)

VERSUS

1. Union of India, through

The General Manager

Western Railway,

Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,

O/o DRM, Western Railway,

Ahmedabad Division, Nr. Chamunda Bridge, Asarwa, Ahmedabad – 380002.

3. Chief Luggage Supervisor

O/o CLS

Western Railway (BG), Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad – 380019.

4. Station Manager

PRATIK VYAS

:: 2 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

O/o Station Manager

Western Railway (BG), Sabarmati,

Ahmedabad – 380019.

………………….. Respondents. (By Advocate: Mr. H.D. Shukla)

O R D E R (ORAL) Per : Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (Judicial)

1. The applicant herein working as Chief Commercial Clerk (BLG) being aggrieved with recovery of damage rent on the ground of unauthorized retention of Railway quarter has filed the OA No. 109/2026 seeking following relief:- “8. RELIEFS SOUGHT: The applicant, therefore, prays as under : (A) That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this petition. (B) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold / declare that impugned ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional action on the part of the respondents not taking any decision on applicant’s request dtd. 28/6/2023 and not taking any decision on reply of the applicant dtd. 21/11/2025, in response to impugned communication dtd. 17/11/2025 and charging and recovering damage rent from the applicant on the alleged ground of unauthorized retention of railway quarter by the

PRATIK VYAS

:: 3 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

applicant on his promotion from June 2023 at Viramgam is non-est in the eyes of law. (C) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to quash and setaside impugned ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional action on the part of the respondents not taking any decision on applicant’s request dtd. 28/6/2023 and not taking any decision on reply of the applicant dtd. 21/11/2025, in response to impugned communication dtd. 17/11/2025 and charging and recovering damage rent from the applicant on the alleged ground of unauthorized retention of railway quarter by the applicant on his promotion from June 2023 at Viramgam. (D) Such other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.

9. Interim Order, if any, prayed for:- Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition by way of interim relief, the respondents may be restrained affecting any further recovery / charging damage rent from the applicant from the salary payable to the applicant from the month of March 2026, in the interest of justice, failing which the same will cause grave and serious injustice and hardship to the applicant.”

PRATIK VYAS

:: 4 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

2. This Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2026 issued notice to the respondents on OA as well as on interim relief and for completion of pleadings the matter was adjourned.

3. During the pendency of the aforesaid OA, the applicant has filed the present MA i.e. M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026 on 07.05.2026 seeking prayer “to restrain the respondents from effecting further recovery from the salary of the applicant on the ground of damage rent.”

A copy of the said MA was supplied to the counsel for the respondents. The said MA and OA has been ordered to be listed on 03.11.2026 for completion of pleadings.

4. Today, the respondents have filed their reply in O.A. and counsel for the applicant sought time to file rejoinder to it. At the same time, Ms. Himanshi Balodi learned counsel for the applicant insisted for hearing of the MA. No. 276/2026.

5. With consent of counsel for both the parties, the MA is taken up for final hearing.

6. In support of the prayer sought in the MA, Ms. Himanshi Balodi counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:- 6.1 That vide notice dated 17.11.2025, the respondents called upon the applicant to produce the sanction of the competent authority within three days regarding occupation of Railway quarter at Sabarmati, Ahmedabad, failing which his occupation of the railway quarter would be treated as unauthorized and damage rent would be recovered. The very said notice dated 17.11.2025 is impugned in

PRATIK VYAS

:: 5 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

the OA. It is stated that the applicant herein duly responded to the said notice/communication vide his reply dated 21.11.2025, explaining that he had neither been informed of any decision on his request/representation dated 28.06.2023 for retention nor had he been allotted any alternative railway quarter at Viramgam, and that he had not drawn HRA during the relevant period.

However, without considering his explanation or passing a reasoned order, the respondents proceeded to treat his retention of the quarter from June 2023 to March 2025 as unauthorized and recovered an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards damage rent from his salary for February 2026. The applicant, therefore, alleges that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjustified and violative of the principles of natural justice, and seeks quashing of the impugned action of the respondents. 6.2 Further, she argued that the respondents without passing any formal speaking order, holding a regulatory inquiry, or issuing a prior cancellation of allotment, unilaterally declared the Applicant's stay as "unauthorized" and they have skipped the fundamental rules of natural justice and executed a coercive financial deduction of Rs. 16,000/- directly from the Applicant’s Level-6 salary. According to learned counsel, this punitive recovery has been executed despite explicit station records proving that the Applicant was never provided alternative housing at Viramgam and did not draw any House Rent Allowance (HRA) during his entire outstation tenure.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 6 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

6.3 Further, she submitted that the respondent have recovered Rs.l6,000/- and the applicant is not in receipt of Rs. l1,000/- as HRA, on the ground that the applicant is allotted railway quarter by the railways. Thus, the applicant is facing a loss of Rs.27,000/- per month from his salary. 6.4 The applicant was orally informed by the respondents that the respondents are going to enhanced the amount of recovery on the ground of alleged damage rent from the applicant. Having come to know about the same, the applicant had submitted a request / representation dated 02/05/2026 to the respondents for regularization of the said railway quarter in favour of the applicant, considering the policy, instructions of the respondents on the subject matter. 6.5 During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the interim order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 16/2025 dated 22.01.2025 (Rakesh Meena Vs. Western Railway & Ors.) and submits that this Tribunal in a similar case restrained the respondents from making any recovery towards the damage rent from the salary of the applicant therein. Further, she submits that in the said case, the respondents have issued show cause after starting the recovery, but in the present case, no show cause has been issued and the respondents have suddenly started recovery from the salary of the applicant. The said action of the respondents is in direct violation of principles of natural justice. 6.6 Further, she placed reliance on the order passed by CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 80/2007 decided on 24.10.2013 (Annexure A/8

PRATIK VYAS

:: 7 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

of the OA) and submits that the principle of natural justice ought to have been followed by the respondents while charging of the damage rent upon the applicant herein. Hence, the MA may be allowed.

7. On the other hand, Mr. H.D. Shukla learned counsel for the respondents opposed the MA and mainly submitted as under:- 7.1 It is submitted that upon scrutiny of the occupation record, the Station Manager, Sabarmati, issued communication dated 17.11.2025 calling upon the Applicant to furnish, within three days, the competent authority's sanction letter for retention of the quarter and informing him that, failing production, his occupation would be treated as unauthorised and damage rent would be recovered. The aforesaid communication thus disclosed the foundational issue and gave the Applicant an opportunity to produce the document that would answer it. 7.2 It can be seen that the Applicant submitted a reply dated 21.11.2025. He referred to his alleged request dated 28.06.2023 and stated that he was unaware of any order upon it. He did not produce an order of sanction. His further assertion that he did not draw house rent allowance or that no other quarter was allotted to him does not create authority to retain a particular Railway quarter. Non-drawal of HRA and lawful authority to occupy are distinct matters. 7.3 It is submitted that the Applicant relies upon a writing dated 28.06.2023 (Annexure A/3 of the OA) seeking retention of the Sabarmati quarter. The departmental comments state that no duly

PRATIK VYAS

:: 8 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

signed and complete retention application was received in the prescribed manner. The writing relied upon was not signed by the Applicant, was not routed by the Station Superintendent, Sabarmati, who was the forwarding authority in relation to the allotment, and was not accompanied by documents establishing an admissible ground such as illness, education or a qualifying family requirement. In these circumstances, no retention sanction could be processed or inferred. It is further stated applicant has also not submitted any request application his claim the Railway quarter at Sabarmati which occupied by him from his transferred station i.e. Viramgam. 7.4 Further, in this regard, learned counsel also argued that the endorsement relied upon by the Applicant at the foot of the writing dated 28.06.2023, even if treated as evidence of movement or forwarding of a paper, is not an order of the competent authority granting retention. It does not identify the sanctioned period, rate of rent, conditions of retention or approving authority. Receipt or internal transmission of an incomplete request cannot be equated with approval. 7.5 It is further submitted that the as per Applicant's case that he believed his request to be pending is insufficient to establish authorised occupation. A Railway employee retaining official accommodation is required to ensure that written sanction has been issued and to comply with its conditions. The Applicant has not produced any sanction order for the period from his transfer to Viramgam until his return to Sabarmati. Nor did he pursue the

PRATIK VYAS

:: 9 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

alleged application with the Station Superintendent, Sabarmati, or the allotment/Personnel Branch for a decision during that period. 7.6 It is submitted that the requirement of natural justice is not disputed. Undisputedly, vide notice dated 17.11.2025 it was specifically conveyed to the applicant that in absence of submission/production of specific sanction to retain the Railway quarter, the said retention of the quarter by the applicant shall attract recovery of damage rent. According to the applicant, he replied to the said notice dated 17.11.2025 on 21.11.2025. His reply has therefore formed part of the record before recovery. Natural justice requires a fair opportunity appropriate to the circumstances; it does not require that an incomplete retention request be deemed allowed or that repeated notices be issued on the same missing sanction. The decision of the CAT, Lucknow Bench dated 24.10.2013 in O.A. No. 80 of 2007, Krishan Nath Chaturvedi v. Union of India, relied upon by the Applicant, turns on its own facts and operative directions. To the extent it requires opportunity before damage rent is charged, the principle is satisfied here by the notice dated 17.11.2025 and the Applicant's reply dated 21.11.2025. It does not lay down that mere pendency of a retention request confers authority to occupy, nor does it dispense with production of a sanction order. 7.7 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the OA be taken up for final hearing since the relief sought in the MA is in nature of final relief as prayed for in the OA. Not only that, the counsel for the applicant referred the grounds and annexures mentioned in the OA to sustain the prayer sought in this OA, therefore, the OA be

PRATIK VYAS

:: 10 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

finally heard. Further, he vehemently argued that any interim relief would amount to grant of final relief. Even otherwise, the applicant has no legal right to retain Railway quarters without there being any legal sanction or approval, thus, he is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the MA. 7.8 Learned counsel for the respondents also referred para 17 of the reply wherein the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Wazir Chand v. Union of India, (2001) 6 SCC 596 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld recovery of penal rent for unauthorised retention of Government accommodation. In Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier, (2005) 5 SCC 245, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that an employee has no right to retain official accommodation beyond the permissible period and that dues for unauthorised occupation may be recovered in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Raghbendra Singh, (2021) 18 SCC 272, further observed that “where an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, penal rent is the natural consequence.” 7.9 According to learned counsel, the aforesaid judgments apply to the legal consequence of unauthorised retention, the question whether retention was actually sanctioned remains one of record, and in the present case undisputedly, the applicant failed to produce sanction order. Thus, the applicant is not entitled for relief sought in the MA.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 11 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

9. It emerges from the record that the respondents vide notice dated 17.11.2025 called upon the applicant to produce the competent authority’s sanction order for retention of Railway Quarter No. 572/A, Type-II, New Railway Colony, Sabarmati and the applicant was informed that failing to produce a sanction order, it shall be presumed that no permission has been obtained by him to retain the quarter. Further, it has been conveyed to the applicant that after his posting or promotional post at Viramgam vide order dated 12.06.2023, till date he has not vacated the Railway quarter at Sabarmati Ahmedabad and the same shall be treated as unauthorized occupation for which Damage Rent will be recovered. 9.1 Undisputedly, the applicant had received the said notice and did not produce/submit any Sanction Order to retain the Railway quarter at Sabarmati on his transfer and promotion at Viramgam. In his reply dated 21.11.2025, he had stated that he has taken charge at Viramgam on 27.06.2023 and further stated that on 28.06.2023 he submitted an application for extension of his quarter at Sabarmati and he is not aware whether extension was granted or not.

10. It can be seen that in absence of any sanction order to retain the Railway quarter, the applicant as on date occupies the same. Since, the respondents have issued notice to the applicant before initiating the recovery towards damage rent of un-authorized occupation of Railway quarter and had called upon the applicant to submit the Sanction Order.

PRATIK VYAS

:: 12 :: M.A. No. 276/2026 in O.A. No. 109/2026

Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant about violation of principle of natural justice.

11. It is settled law that without there being any sanction/approval, Government servant cannot retain/occupy the Government quarter.

12. It is noticed that during the pendency of the OA, the applicant had submitted representation dated 04.05.2026 before the respondents for regularization of occupation of his Railway quarter No. 572/A Type-2 in New Railway Colony, Sabarmati Ahmedabad and the same is pending. We are of the considered opinion that whether the impugned notice dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure A/1 of the OA) and initiation of recovery of damage rent in absence of valid Sanction Order are the subject matter of the OA any consideration on merit will definitely amount to decide the OA itself. Under the circumstances, at this stage, we decline the relief sought in the MA, accordingly, the MA is dismissed.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant is granted four weeks time to file the rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents in OA.

14. List the OA for final disposal on 15.12.2026.

(Sanjiv Kumar) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)

Member (A) Member (J)

/pv/

PRATIK VYAS