O R D E R

By Ramesh Singh Thakur, JM.

The applicant is aggrieved by the fact that the amount of Rs.3,75,060/- towards the payment of DCRG to the applicant, at the time of retirement on 31.01.2014, has been withheld.

2. The applicant has, therefore, sought for the following reliefs:

“8.1 The Respondents may kindly be ordered to release and pay Gratuity and all the settlement dues along with consequential benefits.

8.2 The interest on amount of Gratuity delayed should be paid along with Gratuity.

8.3 Interest on all retirement benefits at the rate of 18%

be paid.

8.4 The cost of this application may be awarded.

8.5 Any other appropriate relief as deemed fit in the nature of circumstances of the case may kindly be granted.”

3. The applicant has earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A No.201/203/2015 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 17.03.2015 with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents to take a view of the pending legal notice in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months. Accordingly, the respondents have passed Annexure A-2 order dated 23.04.2015, whereby the recovery of the damage rent deducted from the DCRG amount of the applicant, has been said to be legal and as per rules. Hence, he has filed this Original Application.

4. The applicant submits that the respondent No.2 has withhold the amount of DCRG, without issuing any show cause notice or prior intimation to the applicant. The applicant submitted a claim application before Assistant Commissioner of Labour and controlling authority under payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 at Baroda Gujarat. However, the respondents have deposited only Rs.1,64,047/- in the bank account of the applicant and the remaining amount was not paid to him.

5. The applicant further submits that he was entitled for Type-II quarter, however, he was allotted Type-I quarter No.371/G-H by the Housing Committee, which was a very old and in poor condition. Further, at the time of retirement, he was entitled to retain Railway accommodation for six months. Therefore, he submitted application for retention of quarter on the ground of medical illness of his son. Hence, there was no question of any unauthorised occupation of the said Railway quarter and the recovery made from the DCRG amount of the applicant is illegal and bad in law.

6. The respondents have filed their reply and have refuted the claim of the applicant. It has been submitted that the applicant had not vacated the Railway quarter prior to his retirement but vacated the same in the month of May, 2014. As per Para 8 of Railway Board’s letter dated 28.10.1993 (Annexure R-13), the Railway administration has the right to withhold, recover or adjust the Government dues from the DCRG amount of the Railway employee and return the balance amount after vacation of the Railway accommodation.

7. The respondents have further submitted that as per settlement arrived on 07.10.2008 in the dispute raised by the Union, the respondents agreed upon the issue that the applicant with three others applied for out of turn allotment before Housing Committee and their applications were sent to General Manager, Western Railway for consideration and necessary orders. However, the Housing Committee had not accepted the proposal for out of turn allotment of Type-II Railway quarter, as there was a long waiting list of 429 employees for allotment of Type-II Railway quarter.

8. It has been further submitted by the respondents that the applicant was in occupation of unsafe Railway quarter No.371/G-H, hence, he was offered alternative Railway quarter No.1663/A, as per his choice. But, despite taking over the charge of Railway Quarter No.1663/A, the applicant had not vacated the previous Railway Quarter No.371/G-H. Therefore, recovery of damage rent and electric charges against unautorised occupation of Railway Quarter was made from DCRG payable to the applicant.

9. The respondents have also submitted that Rail