Partly allowed

Muthuvel.a v. The Workshop Personnel Officer

Madras HC5 Apr 2024WP(MD)/8632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order imposing damage rent on a railway employee for retaining quarters after transfer. The Court set aside the order as illegal due to the lack of a prior show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. It directed the respondent to issue a notice and decide afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.11.2023 imposing damage rent is set aside; the respondent directed to issue a show cause notice and pass orders afresh.

Muthuvel.a Vs The Workshop Personnel Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024 and WMP(MD)Nos.7899 & 7900 of 2024

A.Muthuvel

.. Petitioner

Vs.

The Workshop Personnel Officer, The Golden Rock Railway Workshop, Ponmalai, Tiruchirappalli..

¶11

The Chief Workshop Manager, The Golden Rock Railway Workshop, Ponmalai, Tiruchirappalli..

¶12

The Sr.Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Administration Office, Southern Railways, Tiruchirappalli.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

¶15

1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶17

the records relating to the impugned order in Letter No.WPO/GOC//LR.No.CC/Damage Rent/A.Muthuvel/ASIPF dated 06/11/2023 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and pass a direction to the 1st respondent that not to recover the damage rent from the salary of the petitioner.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Murugan

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the letter of

¶22

the 1st respondent in Letter No.WPO/GOC//LR.No.CC/Damage

¶23

Rent/A.Muthuvel/ASIPF dated 06.11.2023 and consequential direction to the 1st respondent that not to recover the damage rent from the salary of the petitioner.

¶24

2. By consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

3. Heard Mr.K.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶26

Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents.

¶27

2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶29

4 . The petitioner is a Railway employee who was occupying the

¶30

Railway quarters at Trichy. The petitioner was transferred to Villupuram on 30.11.2021. But the petitioner has not vacated the Railway quarters and he retained the same. Since the petitioner has retained the quarters beyond the permissible time, the first respondent has issued the impugned proceedings to recover penal rate of license fee for the occupation of the petitioner beyond the permissible period.

¶31

5. Mr.K.Murugan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner happened to be in the continuous occupation of the quarters only in view of the educational purpose of his children and he has also given representation in this regard. But without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed.

¶32

Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the respondents submitted that as per Master Circular No.49 Rule 10.1 even on educational grounds, an employee cannot seek extension beyond the academic year. Since the petitioner has been in occupation of the quarters even beyond the academic year which fall

¶33

3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶35

after his transfer the impugned order has been issued. The relevant

¶36

portion in this regard is extracted as below:

¶37

4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶39

7. However, the impugned order has been passed without

¶40

issuing any notice to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to make his submissions. On similar grounds, similarly placed persons

¶41

who have filed W.P(MD)No.24922 of 2018 have got an order effect directing to reconsider the representation of the petitioner. The relevant part of the order is extracted hereunder:

¶42

5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶44

"9. Though this Court has found that the impugned order cannot be sustained for a direct levy of the penal rent, without a prior notice, there is no justification on the part of the petitioners herein, to continue the possession of their respective quarters, after they have been transferred from ICF to other Chennai divisions. Hence, the petitioners are required to forthwith vacate their respective quarters, which would also enable the respondents to allot the quarters to other staffs of the ICF, who have been waiting for their allotment.

¶45

10. For all the forgoing reasons, the impugned order dated 11.09.2018, in so far as relates to the petitioners herein are concerned, stands quashed. However, this order will be subject to the condition that these petitioners, who have not already vacated the quarters, shall vacate their respective quarters within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that, in case the petitioners do not vacate their respective quarters within the aforesaid period of 2 months, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the “penal rent” as mentioned in the impugned order, dated 11.09.2018, without reference to the present order of this Court, and also claim further “penal rent” till the date of their actual vacating the quarters. This Writ Petitions stands ordered accordingly. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs."

¶46

6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶48

8. Whatever may be the case, without giving notice if the penal rent is imposed that would go against the principle of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order in Letter No.WPO/GOC//LR.No.CC/Damage Rent/A.Muthuvel/ASIPF dated 06/11/2023 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside. The first respondent is directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and give him an opportunity to make his submission and pass order afresh taking into consideration the earlier representation of the petitioner and also the explanation submitted by him to the show cause and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶49

9. With the above direction this writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶50

05.04.2024

¶51

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no

¶52

PJL

¶53

7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶55

¶56

The Workshop Personnel Officer, The Golden Rock Railway Workshop, Ponmalai, Tiruchirappalli..

¶57

The Chief Workshop Manager, The Golden Rock Railway Workshop, Ponmalai, Tiruchirappalli..

¶58

The Sr.Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Administration Office, Southern Railways, Tiruchirappalli.

¶59

8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶61

9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024

¶63

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶64

PJL

¶65

W.P.(MD)No.8632 of 2024 & WMP(MD)Nos.7899 & 7900 of 2024

¶66

05.04.2024

¶67

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Muthuvel.a v. The Workshop Personnel Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthuvel.a v. The Workshop Personnel Officer

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

R.Clement Raj Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

Pandi Devi P Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

T.Padmavathy Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

Karnan.K Vs The Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education)

M. Sankaralingam Vs Arumugam

Gladwin. a Vs The Secretary