Retention of railway accommodation beyond permissible periods constitutes unauthorized occupation, attracting liability for damage rent as per established rules.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The present LPA arises out of the Judgment dated 09.12.2021 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P. (C) 7798/2020 and C.M. No. 25671/2020, impugned in the present LPA.

2. The facts leading up to the filing of the LPA are as follows-

i. Mr Ashutosh Vasant/Appellant is employed with RailTel Corporation, a Central Public Sector Enterprise registered under the Companies Act, 2013 under the administrative control of the Ministry of Railways. RailTel is a telecom company with a pan-India presence.

ii. At the time of filing the impugned Writ Petition, the Appellant held the post of Director, Project Operation and Management on the Board of Directors of RailTel. In 1990, the Appellant qualified the Indian Engineering Services and joined the Indian Railways Service of Signal Engineers (in short "IRSSE") in 1991. In 2002, the Appellant was deputed to the newly established RailTel Corporation, and was permanently absorbed with RailTel on his own volition, to the post of General Manager in April 2008 having tendered his resignation with the Railway Ministry. In 2010, the Appellant was allotted a flat in the RailTel owned housing facility at 941-A, New Sabarmati Railway Colony in Ahmedabad, Western Railway Division.

iii. The Appellant submits that six mid-session transfers have taken place in between 09.04.2012 and 06.05.2016. The Appellant was transferred from Ahmedabad to Delhi on 24.02.2012. In Delhi, the Appellant was serving as General Manager at the Corporate office of RailTel, where he was posted till 05.07.2013, i.e., up to the date of issue of the second transfer order, whereby he was transferred back to Ahmedabad from New Delhi. The Appellant retained the house allotted to him at Ahmedabad. It is stated that during the academic session of 2013-14, the Appellant's elder son was in the tenth standard for the academic year in Ahmedabad and the Appellant did not want to disturb his son.

iv. The Appellant was transferred from Ahmedabad to Gurgaon on 20.05.2014, where he presented himself for joining on 13.10.2014. The Appellant was relieved at Ahmedabad on 24.07.2014, but joined the Gurgaon office only on 13.10.2014. The fourth transfer took place from Gurgaon to Ahmedabad on 05.08.2015. At the Appellant's own request, he was transferred to Delhi/NCR from Ahmedabad on 30.10.2015.

3. Throughout the course of the mid academic session transfers, the Appellant retained the accommodation in Ahmedabad at normal rent rate paid from his monthly salary. He was also allotted a residence at East Kidwai Nagar. The Appellant states that relocating between stations would have presented impediments in his children's education as well as cause logistical problems in relocating his family on account of his father's deteriorating health conditions. He sent representation letters dated 27.06.2015 and 02.07.2015 requesting for a transfer from New Delhi to Ahmedabad, so as to be in close proximity to his family residing in Ahmedabad. It is the Appellant's submission that shifting his family from the old station, i.e., Ahmedabad to New Delhi was not possible on account of his sons being in the middle of their academic sessions in school, in twelfth and tenth grades respectively, and also on account of his father's frail health conditions. Subsequently, vide Order dated 05