Retention of Railway accommodation for a family member post-retirement due to medical incapacity depends on eligibility rules; equitable considerations may influence the final decision regarding rent demands.

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following relief:

“...to call for the files pertaining to the issuance of impugned proceedings dated 05.01.2021 and set aside the same and direct the Respondents to regularize the said Railway accommodation and collect only normal rent and release Gratuity amounts withheld and pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the Applicant, are summarised below:-

i. K.Rajashekar, the Applicant herein, was appointed as Khalasi at the Gooty Diesel Shed, and, subsequently, promoted as Technician-III, Technician-II and Technician-I, at the Diesel Loco Shed, Guntakal. After rendering unblemished service, he became seriously ill and was medically de-categorized and was allowed to retire w.e.f. 29.09.2018, owing to incapacitation. The Competent Authority considered his request for Compassionate Appointment to his son, and, accordingly, his son, K.Ajay, was given appointment as Helper in the Electrical Department, and he joined the Railways on 27.07.2019. While the Applicant was in service, he was residing at Railway Quarter No.1093/E, Twin Lane, Guntakal. The said Railway Quarter was suitable and convenient for visiting the Railway Hospital where he was availing continuous and constant medical treatment. Therefore, in view of the necessity, the Applicant requested the Respondents for retention of the Railway Quarters, in terms of the extant Rules, in favour of his son, Sri K.Ajay, Khalasi Helper, TRD/GTL. However, vide proceedings, dt.05.01.2021, Respondents rejected his request.

ii. It is claimed by the Applicant that, in terms of the extant Rules, Respondents had allowed retention of the said Railway quarters for a period of 2 years on normal rent from the date of his retirement.

iii. The Applicant submits that he was having two unmarried daughters and was financially in a very poor condition, due to his sudden retirement and health problems. Hence, the Applicant requested the DRM/GTL, vide representation, dt.12.03.2020, for regularizing the same quarters in the name of his son, K.Ajay. The then DRM, endorsed the said representation by writing – “Let’s try to allot same quarter. Please connect the Rule and put up”, and marked it to the Sr.DPO/GTL.

iv. The Applicant’s Gratuity amount was withheld by the Respondents, since his stay in the said Railway Quarters was not regularized. As such, the Applicant was facing severe finantial problems. Therefore, the Applicant once again requested the Respondents, vide his representation, dt.12.08.2020, for regularization of the period of stay in the said Railway Quarters.

v. It is contended that, in terms of the Master Circular No.49, the Applicant is entitled to regularization/retention of the said Railway Quarters. As per the said Circular, when a Railway Employee, who has been allotted Railway accommodation, retires from service due to medical incapacitation, his son may be allotted Railway accommodation, on out of turn basis, provided his son is a Railway Employee and eligible for Railway accommodation and had been sharing accommodation with his father for at least six months, before the date of retirement, etc. Further, if the Railway Quarters belong to a different pool, the deficiency, so caused, in that pool of quarters should be made good at the earliest opportunity, in order that the balance is restored.

vi. However, the Respondents, vide the impugned proceedings, dt.05.01.2021, rejected the request of t