Devendra Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

The present O.A has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The applicant joined NCR Headquarters on 09.05.2022 as Deputy CSO (Electrical) in NFSAG grade and immediately applied for Government accommodation as per his entitlement. He also submitted an online application dated 18.05.2022 for allotment of a regular bungalow, but no appropriate action was taken by the respondents. The applicant again requested for allotment of residential/transit accommodation. However, the respondents offered Type-IV accommodation to him on 02.09.2022, whereas he was entitled to Type-V accommodation. The applicant informed the respondents on 08.09.2022 that the accommodation offered was not as per his entitlement and again requested for appropriate accommodation vide letter dated 05.12.2022. Instead of considering his request, the respondents issued a proposal dated 20.01.2023 for recovery of penal rent for the guest house accommodation occupied by the applicant and thereafter passed the impugned recovery order dated 02.03.2023. The applicant contends that during the relevant period he was neither allotted accommodation as per his entitlement nor paid HRA. He has, therefore, challenged the impugned recovery order dated 02.03.2023 before this Tribunal on the ground that the same was passed without proper consideration of the facts and without approval of the competent authority.

Per contra, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit contending that on the applicant’s request, Room No. N-16 (AC) at the Officer Rest House (ORH), Prayagraj Station was allotted to him vide letter dated 11.05.2022. He was informed that the ORH was only a temporary arrangement and he was required to apply for regular Railway accommodation within 10 days. According to the respondents, under the guidelines dated 13.09.2019, if an officer declined the regular/transit accommodation offered to him, ORH charges were payable from the 11th day. The prescribed rate for an AC room at Prayagraj was Rs. 800 per day. The applicant submitted an online application for regular accommodation on 18.05.2022. Subsequently, Type-IV (Special) Quarter No. 460-B at Railgaon Colony, Subedarganj was offered to him on 02.09.2022. Applicant did not accept the offered accommodation. Subsequently, another accommodation, i.e. Quarter No. 502-A (Type-V, duplex type and not single-storey), was allotted to the applicant. The applicant initially accepted the allotment but, after a few days, refused to take possession of the quarter on the ground that its condition was not good. Thereafter the respondents initiated recovery of ORH charges and issued the proposal dated 20.01.2023, followed by the impugned recovery order dated 02.03.2023. The respondents have contended that the recovery was made strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, which were supplied to the applicant along with the ORH allotment letter. They have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

I have heard Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Arun Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the respondents, and have perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant joined as Deputy CSO (Electrical) in NFSAG grade on 09.05.2022 and immediately applied for allotment of Government accommodation as per his entitlement. He also submitted an online application for regular accommodation. However, no accommodation of his entitlement was allotted to him. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the respondents offered only Type-IV accommodation to the applicant, whereas he was entitled to Type-V accommodation. The applicant informed the respondents that the accommodation offered was not as per his entitlement and repeatedly requested allotment of appropriate accommodation. It was further submitted that, despite the applicant’s repeated requests and the fact that he was not allotted accommodation as per his entitlement, the respondents initiated recovery of penal rent for the Officer Rest House and subsequently passed the impugned recovery order dated 02.03.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant was also not paid HRA during the relevant period. Therefore, the recovery of penal rent is unjustified and liable to be quashed.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant himself requested allotment of Room No. N-16 (AC) in the Officer Rest House, Prayagraj, which was allotted to him vide letter dated 11.05.2022. At the time of allotment, the applicant was clearly informed that the ORH was only a temporary arrangement and he was required to apply for regular Railway accommodation within 10 days. It is also argued that, at the initial stage, a Type-IV quarter was allotted to the applicant, but he refused to accept the same on the ground that it was not commensurate with his status. Thereafter, another accommodation, i.e. Quarter No. 502-A (Type-V, duplex type and not single-storey), was allotted to him. The applicant initially accepted the said accommodation but, within a few days, refused to take possession of the same. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that, under the guidelines dated 13.09.2019, if an officer declined to accept the regular/transit accommodation offered to him, ORH charges were recoverable from the 11th day. The prescribed rate for an AC room at Prayagraj was Rs. 800 per day. It was further submitted that the applicant applied for regular accommodation and a Type-IV (Special) quarter was offered to him online on 02.09.2022. Since the applicant did not accept the accommodation offered to him, recovery of ORH charges was initiated and the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 was passed in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the record.

Since the facts have already been elicited in the preceding paragraphs and in the pleadings of the parties, there is no need to reproduce the same again.

The main question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents were justified in recovering the charges for occupation of the Officer Rest House from the applicant after he declined to accept the regular accommodation offered to him.

It is not disputed that the applicant joined the North Central Railway Headquarters on 09.05.2022 and requested for temporary accommodation. On his request, Room No. N-16 (AC) at the Officer Rest House, Prayagraj Station was allotted to him vide letter dated 11.05.2022. The said allotment was only a temporary arrangement. The applicant was also informed that he was required to apply for regular Railway accommodation within the prescribed period. The applicant accordingly submitted an online application for regular accommodation on 18.05.2022.

Before discussion further, it will be appropriate to quote the letter dated 13.09.2019:-

It will also be appropriate to quote the letter dated 16.11.2023

The record further shows that a Type-IV (Special) Railway quarter bearing No. 460-B, Railgaon Colony, Subedarganj was offered to the applicant on 02.09.2022. The applicant, however, did not accept the said accommodation on the ground that he was entitled to Type-V accommodation. Thus, it is clear that regular Railway accommodation was offered to the applicant, but he declined to accept the same. Allotment of Type IV accommodation was as per provisions contained in para No. IV of Annexure No. 1 of letter dated 13.09.2019.

The respondents have relied upon the office letter dated 13.09.2019 itself issued by the General Manager, North Central Railway, relating to charges for occupation of Officers Rest House. The said letter was issued with the concurrence of the PFA and approval of the General Manager. Along with the said letter, revised charges were prescribed in Table-I and guidelines for allotment of Officers Rest House to officers joining on transfer were issued as Annexure-I.

As per Clause (i) of Annexure-I, in the case of permanent transfer, occupation of the Rest House, in the first instance, was permitted for ten days only. Clause (ii)(a) further provides that occupation beyond ten days for residential purpose could be permitted only where the officer had formally applied for transit/regular accommodation and the same had not been allotted or offered. The Rest House was thus intended only as an interim arrangement until regular/transit accommodation was allotted.

More importantly, Clause (ii)(b) of Annexure-I specifically provides that where an officer declines to accept the regular/transit accommodation offered to him, rent as mentioned at Item No. 7 of Table-I shall be levied from the date of allotment of such accommodation. On the other hand, where the officer had registered for allotment in time but no transit/regular accommodation had been offered to him, the rate mentioned at Item No. 5 of Table-I was applicable. Thus, the instructions clearly make a distinction between an officer who has not been offered accommodation and an officer who has been offered accommodation but declines to accept it.

In the present case, the applicant had applied for regular accommodation and subsequently a Type-IV (Special) quarter was offered to him on 02.09.2022. The applicant did not accept the same because, according to him, he was entitled to Type-V accommodation. His refusal to accept the accommodation offered to him, however, brings his case within Clause (ii)(b) of Annexure-I. The fact that the applicant considered the accommodation offered to him to be below his entitlement cannot, by itself, confer a right upon him to continue occupying the Officer Rest House without payment of the prescribed charges. Here it is pertinent to mention that applicant was subsequently allotted a type V accommodation and it was accepted by him but after few days he has surrender it. Thus, it is also relevant that Clause (iv) of Annexure-I specifically deals with officers entitled to Type-V accommodation. It provides that such officers may be allotted Type-IV accommodation as a temporary measure, subject to the conditions mentioned therein, and that such officers would automatically be registered for change of quarter to Type-V. Therefore, the Railway instructions themselves contemplate allotment of Type-IV accommodation as a temporary measure even in the case of an officer entitled to Type-V accommodation. The applicant, therefore, cannot contend that the mere offer of Type-IV accommodation was wholly contrary to the applicable instructions.

The applicant has contended that he was not paid HRA during the relevant period. This contention also does not absolve him from payment of the prescribed charges for occupation of the Officer Rest House. Clause (iii) of Annexure-I provides that where an officer is permitted to occupy the Rest House for residential purpose, due rent/charges are to be recovered and HRA is not to be paid to the officer. Thus, the question of HRA and the liability to pay Rest House charges are governed by the relevant Railway instructions. Non-payment of HRA cannot, by itself, invalidate the recovery of the prescribed Rest House charges.

It is further relevant to notice that the Railway Board subsequently issued a letter dated 16.11.2023, bearing No. 2023/LMB-1/7/1, amending the Master Circular on occupation of Railway Rest Houses/Rest Rooms. By the said letter, Sub-para 4-A was inserted in the Master Circular. It was provided that rent paid by officers for a Rest House occupied on residential grounds would not be more than the rent of the entitled house for that station and that, if an officer continued to occupy the Rest House for 15 days beyond the offer of allotment of a house, the rent would thereafter be charged at the rate equal to the daily Rest House rates.

However, the said Railway Board letter dated 16.11.2023 expressly provides that the amendment would have prospective effect, i.e. from the date of issue of the letter. The applicant's case relates to the period beginning from May, 2022 and the impugned recovery order was passed on 02.03.2023. Therefore, the subsequent amendment dated 16.11.2023 cannot be applied retrospectively to the applicant's case. The liability of the applicant has to be examined on the basis of the instructions which were in force during the relevant period, particularly the guidelines dated 13.09.2019.

The subsequent amendment also does not invalidate the earlier instructions dated 13.09.2019. For the period in question, the said instructions specifically provided for recovery of the prescribed charges where an officer declined to accept the regular/transit accommodation offered to him. The applicant's case is squarely covered by the said provision.

It is also relevant to mention that the respondents did not straightaway make the recovery. A proposal dated 20.01.2023 was issued before passing the impugned order dated 02.03.2023. The applicant thus had an opportunity to place his case before the competent authority. The impugned order was thereafter passed on the basis of the applicable guidelines and the facts relating to allotment of the Officer Rest House and the subsequent offer of regular accommodation.

The recovery in question is not in the nature of a disciplinary penalty imposed upon the applicant. It is only recovery of the prescribed charges for continued occupation of the Officer Rest House in terms of the applicable administrative instructions. Therefore, the principles applicable to disciplinary punishment cannot be applied to the present case.

The applicant has admittedly occupied the Officer Rest House and has not disputed the period of such occupation. He was subsequently offered regular Railway accommodation but declined to accept the same on twice, firstly when he was offered a Type IV accommodation, secondly when a Type V accommodation was allotted. In these circumstances, the recovery of charges in accordance with the instructions dated 13.09.2019 cannot be said to be arbitrary or contrary to the applicable rules.

For the reasons discussed hereinabove, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.03.2023. The applicant has failed to establish any violation of the applicable rules or any procedural irregularity warranting interference by this Tribunal. The Original Application is, accordingly, liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.