Allowed

M.M.V. Anthony and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2014WP/1767/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning railway quarter allotment, the court noted the 'father-to-son' concessional scheme. Considering the petitioner's long-standing occupation and the hardship of eviction after his father's death, the court allowed the petition and permitted occupation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is allowed to occupy the railway quarters.

M.M.V. Anthony and Anr. Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1767.2000.sxw

¶2

1/5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1767 OF 2000

¶5

Mr. V.E. Anthony retired Railway employee r/at railway quarters No. G/1/24 Kalyan, Dist. Thane.

¶6

Mr. V.A. Thomas working as Motorman Central Railway, Mumbai CST, Mumbai. ... Petitioners V/s. Union of India & ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. D.V. Gangal a/w. Ms. Suchitra Kamble a/w. Ms. Vaishali Agane for the petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent UOI.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ .

¶10

17^th July, 2014.

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The petitioner nos.1 and 2 in this petition are related inter se as father and son. Petitioner no.1 retired from service on 28th February, 1990. Petitioner no.2 was appointed on 29th December, 1986. He is still in railway service. He was appointed as railway Guard. After the appointment, the petitioner no.2 being son of petitioner no.1 started residing in the quarters allotted to his father by the

¶13

wp1767.2000.sxw

¶14

2/5

¶15

railway administration. By communication dated 10th December, 1987 the petitioner no.2 V.A. Thomas informed the DRM to deduct house rent allowance from pay sheet. By communication dated 12thAugust, 1989 the petitioner no.1 requested the DRM to allot railway quarters occupied by him in the name of his son on the basis of "father-to- son" policy. By communication dated 1st December, 1987 the Loco Foreman of the Kalyan Central Railway informed DRM that an application was received from Mr. V.A. Thomas, Assistant Engineer, Kalyan in connection with deduction of the house rent allowance in the regular pay-sheet. The same was forwarded for further disposal and necessary action.

¶16

The Railway administration initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner no.2 on the ground that he was occupying railway quarters without permission and was in illegal occupation of the same. Petitioner no.2 approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application number as OA No. 908/1993. By an order dated 31st January, 2000 the Tribunal dismissed the original application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred present writ petition.

¶17

By an order dated 11^th April, 2000 in paragraph 2 following interim-relief was granted to the petitioner:

¶18

“ Interim-relief in terms of prayer clause (d) subject to condition that the petitioners will refund to the Railway Administration the amount of H.R.A. which he received during the period from December 1986 to May 1998 within a period of six months from today.”

¶19

wp1767.2000.sxw

¶20

3/5

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that accordingly the petitioner had refunded an amount of Rs.53,241/- to the Chief Cashier, CSTM under intimation to the concerned authorities. Receipt of the refund of said amount which was received by petitioner no.2 as HRA is annexed at page 103 of the paper-book. The said amount was deposited with the Railways on 22nd December, 2000 under the orders of this Court. The petitioner no.2 admittedly continued to be in possession of the railway quarters and he is still in occupation of the same.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the railway authorities had adopted a policy to consider allotment of quarters on the basis of 'father-to-son'. In the present case the Railway Administration could have permitted son to occupy quarters of his father who serves the Railways. Considering the subsequent developments and the fact that petitioner no.2 is in occupation of the railway quarters since last several years and was staying alongwith his father since his birth, unsettling the position would cause severe hardship to the petitioner no.2 and his family.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for Railways while placing reliance on the earlier Full Bench view submits that the Central Administrative Tribunal has adopted reasonable and sound view in rejecting the contentions of the petitioners herein while dismissing the original application. The petitioner no.2 had no authority to occupy the quarters allotted to his father who was in Railway service. The railway administration maintains the seniority list and quarters are allotted according to the rules, seniority and guidelines laid down and decisions taken from time to time and also considering the exigencies of the situation. The

¶24

4/5

¶25

wp1767.2000.sxw

¶26

case of the petitioner no.2 would not fall in either of the categories. Therefore, he ought to have vacated the quarters after dismissal of the original application. Learned Counsel fairly submitted that it is a matter of fact that petitioner no.2 has been in railway service since the year 1986 and occupying the same quarter which his father was occupying. Learned Counsel further submitted that consequent to the order passed by this Court, petitioner no.2 has refunded the HRA received by him to the tune of Rs. 53,241/-. At the same time the Counsel submitted that Railway Administration had withheld the gratuity amount which was payable to the petitioner's father who expired in the year 2006. The said amount was payable in the year 1993 when the petitioner's father retired from the Railway services.

¶27

In respect of contentions raised in Writ Petition No. 1767/2000, we have taken into account the series of events which have taken place. We have perused the observations of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The order of Central Administrative Tribunal inter alia is based on judgment of Full Bench in Original Application No. 854/1994 in case of Liyakat Ali Khan & ors. v/s. Union of India wherein the Tribunal noted that the Bench, after considering the various railway circulars and Indian Railway Establishment Manual, observed that that the scheme of allotment of quarter based on father-to-son basis is a concessional scheme. The petitioner no.2 had no right to get it enforced as of right and in absence of petitioner getting the quarters allotted in accordance with the approved scheme, the original application came to be dismissed.

¶28

In the facts of the case, we find that subsequent developments as described above need to be taken note of. The father of petitioner had expired. The petitioner is occupying the quarters since his birth and even after engaging in the

¶29

5/5

¶30

wp1767.2000.sxw

¶31

employment of the railways since the year 1986. Directing the petitioner to vacate the premises now would certainly cause hardship to him and his family members. Another circumstance which needs to be taken note of is that consequent to the order passed by this Court on 11th April, 2000 amount towards the HRA received by the petitioner has been refunded to the Railway Administration in the year 2000 itself. In the facts of the case we find that a little sympathetic approach needs to be adopted in the case of the petitioners. We are of the view that the petitioner in the normal course now could be eligible for consideration of allotment of quarters seniority wise. Considering all these facts and circumstances we are inclined to allow the petition and pass following order.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition succeeds.

¶34

The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner no.2 V.A.Thomas is allowed to occupy the subject railway quarters.

¶35

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶36

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶37

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶38

L.S. Panjwani, P.A.

M.M.V. Anthony and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.V. Anthony and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Ratnasen Kisan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Vitthal Ramchandra Shinde Vs Rashtriya Girni Kamgar Sangh

The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Dept and Ors. Vs Devidas Popatrao Kulkarni

V.E. Anthony Since Deceased L/R Shri v.a.Thomas Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Shivaji Sambhaji Kadam Vs Shrimant Babaso Galve and Ors.

Mr. Shivaji Sambhaji Kadam Vs Shrimant Babaso Galve and Ors.