IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that gratuity can be withheld for damage rent due to unauthorized occupation under the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993.

JUDGMENT :

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) :

1. Two appeals are taken up together as they emanate from a common judgment and order dated September 21, 2017 passed in WP No. 29595 (W) of 2016.

2. By the impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of appellant in FMA 801 of 2019 directing the appellants in FMA 802 of 2019 to release the gratuity of the private appellants within four weeks with interest thereon. The learned Trial Court also directed the private appellants to pay the assessed amount of damage rent for unauthorized occupation of Railway quarters within a period of six weeks failing which the Railway authorities were granted liberty to realize the same from the pension of private appellants.

3. Learned advocate for the private appellant submitted that Rule 15 and Rule 16 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 do not provide for determination of rent and damage rent. The damage rent could not have been assessed and levied except according to the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It was contended that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the provisions of eviction. The private appellant had already vacated the quarters and as such, no question of eviction from Railway quarters was in the issue. In support of his contention, learned advocate for the private appellant relied upon 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 700 (East Central Railway vs CAT Patna) and 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4054 (Union of India vs Rajinder Singh).

4. Learned advocate for the private appellant also submitted that amount of gratuity as well as pension paid to a retired employee is not liable to attachment under any circumstances. On such proposition, learned advocate for the private appellant relied upon (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 376 (Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National bank), (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 591 (Gorakhpur University vs Dr. Shitla Prasad), (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 449 (Som Prakash Rekhi vs Union of India and Another), (1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 429 (State of Kerala and others vs M Padmanabhan Nair), (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 589 (R. Kapur vs Director of Inspection), (1971) 2 Supreme Court Cases 330 (Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar and Ors.), (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 210 (State of Jharkhand vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava).

5. Relying upon (1976)3 Supreme Court Cases 407 (New Delhi Municipal Committee vs Kalu Ram), learned advocate for the private appellant contended that even taking recourse to the Act of 1971, the provisions thereof do not authorize the Railway authorities to realize debt which is otherwise time barred, in terms of Article 52 of the Limitation Act.

6. Learned advocate for the private appellant also submitted that eviction of unauthorized occupants of public premises is governed by the provisions of the Act of 1971, the provisions of Railway Act or Rules framed thereunder, cannot be applied. In support of such contention, he relied on AIR 1966 SC 135 (Damji Valji Shah vs LIC of India), AIR 1981 Bom 72 (Arjun Babloo Thukral vs G. V. Javadkar & Ors.) and (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 674 (Suresh Nanda vs CBI).

7. The authorities of Railway have also preferred appeal against the impugned order. They are aggrieved with the direction in the impugned order directing realization of arrears of rent and damage rent exclusively from the pension payable to the private appellant.

8. The private appellant/writ petitioner was a Constable under Railway Protection Force. He joined on April 07, 1975 and was posted at Adra Division. He was allotted a Railway quarter and occupied the same on usual rents.

9. On June 15, 1992, the private appellant was transferred to Burnpur under the same division. He, by his letter dated July 27, 1992 applied for retention of his quarter at Adra on the ground of studies of his children. Such request of the private appellant was acceded to by the railway authorities, by a writing dated August 17