ORDER

Bidisha Baneriee, Judicial Member Ld. counsels were heard and records perused.

2. In his second journey to this Tribunal the applicant has sought for the following reliefs:-

"a) Speaking order dated 13/02/2012 issued by the Divisional Engineer, S.E. ;

Rly., Kharagpur, cannot be tenable in the eye of iaw and as such the same may be quashed;

b) An order do issue directing the respondents to regularise the quarter in favour of the applicant no.2 on out of turn under father and son rules."

3. The applicant is aggrieved as the quarter occupied by his father until his father's retirement, has not been regularised in his name under 'father and son' rule after his appointment. | He has cited RBE 85 of 95 and a decision in W.P.C.T. 640/2007 in support of his claim.

%

& i 4. In the earlier round in O.A. 72 of 2010 this Tribunal issued the i/

following order:-

"ln this O.A. filed for the second time, applicant challenges validity of speaking order dated 21.4.2009(A-8). Admitted facts are that applicant No.l, father of applicant No.2, was medically decategorised and retired from Railway service on 14.1.2000. Applicant No.2 being his son was appointed on compassionate ground as Jr. Gateman under S.E.(P. Way)/SRO. He was transferred to Hijli w.e.f. 23.5.2005. He made a request to regularize the Railway quarter allotted to his father on the ground that he was not drawing House Rent Allowance. Earlier he had approached this Tribunal vide O.A.No.787 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 7.11.2008 requiring the applicant to submit a better representation to Divisional Engineer(South), Kharagpur with all documents in his favour on said aspect and thereafter the concerned authority was required to consider the same and pass speaking order. In purported compliance of said order, the respondents passed speaking order dated 21.4.2009 validity of which is challenged in present O.A. Vide said speaking order, the respondents have highlighted that since the appointment on compassionate around was made beyond a period of two years from the date of retirement of the ex- employee, he was not entitled to regularisation of said quarter. Further aspect which has been highlighted was that he was not posted In the same place where his father was holding the Railway quarter. In reply filed the respondents have reiterated what was projected in the speaking order dated 21.4.2009. Applicants on the other hand, placed reliance on Srl.No.85/95 dated 11.9.1995 to contend that os per the instructions of Railway Board.

&

where a dependent is appointed on compassionate grounds at "another Station" also, such a request can be entertained.

2. Having heard both sides we are of the view that the respondents should consider applicants' request if necessary to relax that condition objectively, bv passing objective and reasoned order.

3. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No costs."

5. Circular 85/95 stipulates as under:-

"Serial No.85/95 No.E886/O/Vol.VII Calcutta, the 11th Sept./9S Sub : Regularisation of allotment of Railway Qrs. In the name of an eligible dependent of Railway employees who retires from or dies while in service.

l On a reference to the Railway Boarjd seeking their clarification as to whether a dependent of a deceased Railway employee appointed to a place other than place where the deceased Railway employee tvas provided the Railway accommodation can be eligible for out of turn allotment. The Board have clarified that in such a situation when the dependent has been given appointment on compassionate grounds at another Station, his/her case should be considered for out of turn allotment at that Station, in case the deceased employee i.e. his/her father/mother was in occupation of a Rly. Qtr. At the place of his/her duty before death.

Authority: Rly. Board's letter No.E(G)QR 1-31 dated31.7.95.

INDEX NO. 1062:

n f- i• •'

Our of turn allotment should be considered in Comp, appointment r another station also i.e. other than the place where deceased Rly. employee was enjo