IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 590 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.727/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN.P.O., CHENNAI-600003. 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695014. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695014. 4. ESTATE OFFICER & DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (WORKS), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695014. 5. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-695014. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARAN KAIMAL, SC,RAILWA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M.MARIAPPAN, S/O. MOOKAN, HELPER-II, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KOCHUVELI, RESIDING AT RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.130-A, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. (CAT) No. 590 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. O.P. is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the railways to refund penal rent collected from the respondent. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the petitioners, and have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal. Respondent was removed from service by the railways and thereafter his occupancy of the quarters was treated as irregular and he was asked to pay penal rates. However, his dismissal later got modified leading to restoration of the respondent in service. However, railways did not refund the penal rent collected from the respondent's salary for the period his occupancy was treated as irregular after removal from service. The Tribunal found that once respondent was restored in service, he was entitled to continue in quarters and there was no justification to demand any penal charges. We are in complete agreement with the view of the Tribunal. In our view, O.P. is a OP(CAT) 590/2010 2 completely unnecessary litigation. Consequently the same is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk OP(CAT) 590/2010 3