JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The Union of India and the South-Eastern Railway Authorities have preferred the instant writ petition against a judgment and order dated July 29, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in Original Application No.350 of 1117 by 2016. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the Tribunal acted palpably in violation of law in directing the appellants-Authorities to refund the amount of the gratuity of the respondent, deducted in lieu of damages and rent, with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum.

2. By placing reliance on Rule 16(8) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, learned counsel submits that, in case the Railway accommodation is not vacated even after the permissible period of retention after superannuation, etc., the Railway Administration shall have the right to withhold, recover or adjust from the Death-Cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG), the normal rent and other amounts as may be due from the ex-Railway employee and return only the balance, if any, on vacation of the Railway accommodation. Clause (e) of sub-Rule (8) also provides that dispute, if any, regarding recovery of damages or rent from the ex-Railway employee shall be subject to adjudication by the concerned Estate Officer appointed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the PP Act’). It is contended that the Estate Officer issued a notice of eviction to the respondent prior to the respondent vacating the accommodation and thereafter started eviction proceedings, which was duly concluded by directing the gratuity dues of the petitioner to be paid after deduction of Rs.3,28,092/-as damage rent and electric and water charges from total DCRG of Rs.5,61,617/-as per Rules. As such, Rule 16(8) of the 1993 Rules was complied with in its entirety.

3. It is further contended that the Estate Officer, by an order dated May 22/23, 2017, clearly ascertained the dues from the respondent and directed such amount to be deducted, pursuant to Rule 16(8)(c). As such, the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in reversing such deduction.

4. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that initially, the wife of the appellant was working as Matron and a 'Type-III' quarter was allotted to her, which was a Medical Pool Quarter. The said quarter was subsequently regularized in favour of the Respondent under the 'husband and wife rule' while the applicant was working in the Commercial Department, on a similar hierarchical footing as his wife. Subsequently, after retirement of the applicant on February 28, 2014, he was requested to vacate the said quarter.

5. Due to demise of the respondent's wife, while in service, their son was appointed as 'Peon' on compassionate ground. As per Rules, permission was given to the respondent to retain the Railway quarter for a maximum period of eight months, that is, up to October 31, 2014.

6. Although the respondent as well as his son had applied for a quarter for the son and for regularizing the occupation being enjoyed by the respondent in favour of his son, it was not possible to grant such request, since the son was employed in a category below the respondent and his wife, and, as such, would not be entitled to the 'Type-III' quarter. Moreover, the said quarter was under the Medical Pool, hence, could not be allotted to the respondent's son.

7. The respondent, it is submitted, vacated the quarter on December 26, 2016, which he was occupying as an unauthorised occupier since November 1, 2014, despite having been served with a notice to vacate prior to the expiry of his extended occupation.

8. As such, there was no illegality in the deduction of gratuity in lieu of damage rent recoverable from the respondent, it is contended.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Gratuity Act'). The said sub-section specifically provides, i