Law prohibits benefits from unauthorized actions; withholding gratuity for valid government dues is lawful.

JUDGMENT :

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. W.P.(C) 7344/2009 has been filed challenging the Order dated 17.10.2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 1815/2007, titled Amit Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioners herein, with the following observations:

“17. Perusal of the records shows that applicant no.2 was even issued warning on 05.12.2005 for unauthorizedly exchanging the quarter with Shri S.P. Singh and after examining the case at length it was decided it is not permissible to regularize the quarter in these circumstances.

18. From above it is clear that the case was not only rejected on one ground but on two grounds, therefore, reliance placed by applicant on letter dated 24.10.2005 alone cannot advance applicant's case in these circumstances.

19. Counsel for the applicant relied on few letters to show that telephone was installed at C-5/D, Basant Lane and permission to retain the quarter was granted but all these letters have been written by the Medical Divisional Central Hospital relying on letter written by Sr. Sectional Engineer, who is not the Competent Authority.

20. In view of above discussion, OA is dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs.”

2. W.P.(C) 481/2019 has been filed, challenging the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 3099/2015, titled U.K. Sharma v. General Manager, Northern Railway & Ors., dismissing the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein with the following directions:

“8. From the above, it is clear that the respondents have already informed about the amounts due to the applicant which have been deducted from his gratuity and no amount is found to be payable to the applicant.

Accordingly, the OA is bereft of merit and is dismissed. No costs.”

3. At the outset, we may note that the present batch of petitions involve a common bundle of facts, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to adjudicate the said facts vide this common Judgment.

4. The principal dispute in these petitions concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to regularisation/continued occupation of the railway accommodation, and the consequential question as to whether the respondents were justified in treating such occupation as unauthorised and effecting recovery of alleged dues including damages, rent and electricity charges from the retiral benefits of the petitioner-Mrs. U.K. Sharma, particularly the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.

5. For the sake of convenience, we deem it fit to refer to the petitioners herein as per the memo of parties provided in W.P. (C) No. 7344 of 2009. Accordingly, Mr. Amit Sharma shall be referred to as ‘Petitioner No. 1’ and Mrs. U.K. Sharma shall be referred to as ‘Petitioner No. 2’.

FACTS OF THE CASE

6. In a nutshell, the background of the case is that the petitioner no. 2 was an employee of the Northern Railway, and served as an Assistant Nursing Officer/Matron at the Central/Divisional Hospital of the Northern Railway. During the subsistence of her service and in accordance with her entitlement, she was allotted Quarter No. 159/6, Basant Lane, Northern Railway, New Delhi on 16.10.1993.

7. The said railway quarter, on 10.07.2005, was exchanged by the petitioner no. 2 with Shri S.P. Singh, who was an occupant of Quarter No. C-5/D, Basant Lane,