JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 24th October, 2001 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in O.A. 305 of 1997. By the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the order dated 30th October, 1996 issued by the respondents herein. The challenge arises in the following factual background.

2. The petitioner retired as a Traffic Costing Officer from Central Railway on attaining age of superannuation on 31st October, 1993. In the year 1991, when the petitioner was working as S.E.M. (M S), Head Quarter Mumbai he came to be transferred to Jhansi by office order No. 574 of 1991 dated 24th October, 1991. He reported sick and joined duties on 6th July, 1992 at Jhansi. While serving at Bombay, the petitioner was allotted railway quarter. It is the case of the respondents that even after the transfer order, the petitioner continued to occupy the said quarter and did not vacate the same. Even after reporting for duty at Jhansi, the petitioner did not vacate the staff quarter. The permission to retain the quarter came to an end on 5th September, 1992 as it was only for a period of two months. The said permission was granted subject to payment of flat rate of licence fee. Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to retain the quarter upto 31st March, 1993 as a special case and no further permission came to be granted. It is the case of the respondents that he was transferred back to Mumbai in October 1993. Although, as per the Rules, upon transfer to Mumbai the petitioner was not entitled to remain in the said quarter and was required to make a fresh application, he continued to occupy the said quarter. Since the petitioner did not vacate the said quarter after the permission came to an end, letters were addressed on 25th May, 1993 informing the petitioner that permitted period of retention being over, the retention beyond such permission will be treated as "unauthorised occupation" and rent will be recovered at damage rate. He was also called upon to vacate the quarter failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated. This demand was reiterated vide letter dated 29th December, 1993.

3. It appears that ultimately an order was passed after the petitioner retired from service on 30th October, 1996, recovering an amount of Rs. 54,609/- from the death-cum-retirement gratuity/terminal benefits granted to the petitioner. It is this order of the respondents which was impugned in the original application.

4. A reply/written statement was filed by the respondents dealing with the contents of the O.A. in which the respondents reiterated the above stand and invited the attention of the Tribunal to the correspondence on record. Further, reliance was placed on the Rules and particularly Rule 15(2) of Railway Service Pension Rules, 1993. It is the case of the respondents that these rules empower the authorities to recover dies which remained outstanding at the date of retirement and such dues include the dues pertaining to the outstanding rent. The recovery is to be made in accordance with these Rules by adjusting amount of D.C.R.G. becoming payable to the concerned employee.

5. The Tribunal after hearing parties agreed with the submissions of the respondents. It negatived the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that order of recovery suffered from serious legal infirmities and is also passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently the O.A. was dismissed.

6. Shri Walia, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended before us that the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from serious errors apparent on the face of record. In his submission, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate basic and fundamental aspects of the matter. He contended that it is well settled position in law that merely because the employee concerned h