CWP No. 5450 of 1997 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.5450 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision:21.7. 2008 Kulwant Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.J.S.Wasu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. The unsuccessful petitioners herein have challenged the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chanidgarh Bench, Chandgiarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal), rejecting the claim of the petitioner No.2 for out of turn allotment of the Government house originally allotted to his retired father. The controversy turns on the interpretation of the word 'dependent' in the instructions issued by the Indian Railways regarding out of turn allotment of Railway accommodation to the eligible dependents/specified relations of a deceased/retired railway employee. CWP No. 5450 of 1997 (O&M) 2 The petitioner No.1 was an employee of the Indian Railways at Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi. In the year 1980 his elder son also joined the Railways at Varanasi and was subsequently transferred to the Diesel Component Works, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ' DCW') in the year 1983. On 14.12.84 the petitioner No.1 was also transferred to DCW where he was allotted a Type-II quarter as per his turn. On 28.11.88 petitioner No.2, the younger son of petitioner No.1, also joined service at DCW. For four years thereafter he stayed along with his father and, presumably drew House Rent Allowance because, on 25.8.92 he was allowed by the competent authority to officially share his father's accommodation with the stipulation that he would not be paid any H.R.A. On the retirement of the petitioner No.1 on 29.2.96, the petitioners applied for out of turn allotment of the house allotted to the petitioner No.1, in favour of the petitioner No.2. The relevant portion of the Railway Instructions Annexure P-2 is as follows:- 1. “The Ministry of Railways have decided to issue consolidated instructions regarding regularisation of Railway quarters in favour of the eligible dependents of the deceased/retired Railway employees, in supersession of all previous instructions. They have decided that the requests from the eligible dependents/specified relations of the deceased Railway employees who are appointed on compassionate grounds and of retired railway employees may be allowed by the competent authorities on the Railways,etc.as under:- 2. When a Railway employee who has been allotted railway accommodation retires from service or dies while in service, CWP No. 5450 of 1997 (O&M) 3 his/her son, daughter, wife, husband or father may be allotted railway accommodation on out of turn basis provided that the said relation was a railway employee eligible for railway accommodation and had been sharing accommodation with the retiring or deceased railway employee for at least six months before the date of retirement or death and had not claimed any H.R.A. during the period. The same residence might be regularlised in the name of the eligible relation if he/she was eligible for a residence of that type or higher type. In other cases a residence of the entitled type or type next below is to be allotted. 3. Provided that in case where the retiring employees including those who take voluntary retirement or the member of his family owns house in the place of his/her posting the specified relative will not be eligible for allotment of railway quarters or out of turn basis. Notes: 1........................................................................................ 2....................................................................................... 3. .................................................................................. 4. The concession of ad hoc allotment to the eligible dependent would not be available in case any other dependent is already in occupation of Government accommodation.” The counsel for the petitioner has urged that Note -4 (supra) would not be attracted to the present case since the elder son of the petitioner No.1 could, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as a dependent of the petitioner No.1. He has relied upon the case of Anandji Haridas and Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. Engineering Mazdoor Sangh and another CWP No. 5450 of 1997 (O&M) 4 reported as AIR 1975 S.C. 946 and the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and others reported as AIR 1992 S.C. 152, to contend that an interpretative process can be resorted to only when the words of a statute are imprecise and obscure. There can be no quarrel with this proposition of law. In this connection it would be profitable to reproduce the reasoning of the learned Tribunal:- “The word 'dependent' has not been used in strict sense in this circular and definitely does not answer the dictionary meaning of the word. A son who gets independent employment and can support himself, can in no way be called a dependent upon his father, who may also be in the same department. The word 'dependent' in this circular has been used with a totally different meaning. Here the word eligible dependent/specified relation convey the meaning that in case the father is in service and his son also gets employment in the same department, latter would be treated as dependent. It is strictly in the sense of father and son being in the same department and son being described as specified relation/eligible dependent. It has to be read in contradistinction with the normal meaning of the word 'dependent' which may convey dependent economically, physically or even for the purpose of accommodation.” We concur with the reasons adopted by the Tribunal because to us it appears that the words 'eligible dependent' and 'specified relation' have been used synonymously, more particularly in view of their juxtaposition. With this meaning the word 'dependent' used in Note-4 would definitely include the elder son of the petitioner No.1 thus disentitling the petitioner No.2 from out of turn allotment. CWP No. 5450 of 1997 (O&M) 5 Before parting with this judgment we may also consider another peripheral controversy. Counsel for the petitioner claims that to the best of his knowledge the retiral benefits of the petitioner No.1 have not been paid to him while the counsel for the respondents asserts that the same have been paid. Be that as it may, we direct that the retiral benefits of the petitioner No.1 should be released to him within a period of one month from the date of vacation of the quarter by the petitioners in case the same have not been so released. With this observation this writ petition is dismissed, however, without any costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE July 21, 2008 sunita