61~?- -3^ —; ,tlfc.?' c'.. r;s noinn K IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION (S) No. / 2009 PETITIONER ^ ^ SHEO NANDAN PRASAD S/o Late Shri. Mohanlal Aged about 66 years, Retu^dM.C.M.(Loco)~ S.E.C.Railway, Raipur. Residing at: Indira Nagar, Cfaaroda-Bhilai District:Durg(CG) VERSVS RESPONDENTS 1. Union oflndia Thrbugh : The General Manager, S.E.C.Railway, Bilaspur Zone, ZoneOfBce.BILASPURfCG') 2. TheSr.DivisionalFinanceManager, S.E.C.Railway, BILASPUR (CG) 3. The Sr. DivisioriaIPersQnneIOfficer, S.E.C.RailwayBilaspurDivision, BILASPUR-4950Q1. 4. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Caravs Building, Civil Lines, JABALPURfMP) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA fSCEfVEO-CQPY •^in^ltls)^ *2£>1csiw'mnaslnghal "SSSiS^ ^Chhattfegal)' fl.Il :i;jt m HSGH eOURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon'bleShriSatishK.Agnihotri& Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, WntJ3®tition.(S)_No.1546of2009 Petitioher ,-;1\ Versus Union of ResDondents (WritPetiticinunderArticie 226/227 ofthe Constitution of tndia) Present:- Shri B.P. Rao, counset for the petitioner. Ms Hamida Siddiqua, standing counse! forthe rsspondents No.1 to3. - ': 1 • • ' .. QRDER<QRAU [Passed on this 1 day bf PerSatish K. Aanihotri, J. Bythis petition, the petiticiner seeksto challengethe legality and validity of the orders dated 20-1-2006 (Annexure - P,'7) passed by the Senior DivisionaS Personnet Officer, South East Central Railway, Biiaspur and the order dated 31-10-2007 (Annexure - P/8V passsd bv the Centra! Ariministrative Tribunai (for short'the CAT"), Cirouit Sittipgs Bench, Bitaspur, in O.A.No.89 of 2007 (Sheo Nandsn Prasadv. TheUnion of IntlSa S Others) whereby and whereunder the originaf appiication has bsen dismissed. The petitioner also seeks to issue a direetion to the rssDondents to refund the recoveredamount of Rs.69, aiong with interest at-the rate of 12% per annum ti payment. \. t"iiijail'tiK;'r~ ^i.1*irmi:|lTll3E ciui4n^!W-'!!l^ste^®lli®:>;5?e'^ ^^••.-^.s::.'.^.^:^^ Kf "" su ^,*y% 2. iiie racts. in nutsneil, as proiectea M. jtioner, are that the petitioner •vhiie serving in the Raliway was ailotted Raiiway Quarter No.543./D, Type - II at BMY - Charoda, which was occupied by him on 8-2-1982. The Diesei Loco Sheds at BMY- Charoda and aiso at Biiaspur were ctosed bv~the Raiiway Administration in the vear 1995, a!l the sta'ffwere transferred and posted at Diesel Loco shed, Raipur. On 1-5-1998 the petitloner was transferred to Raipur. tn terms of tne Raihivsv Board's ietEer dated 25-4-1984 the Senior Divisiona! Personnel Officer, Biiastsur. vide ietter dated 9-S-1995 ailowed .ail .transferred emoiovees includina the petltioner to retain the Ra'iiwav auarters in their possession for a periotj oftwo years ortili the ai new quarters at Raipur. As Raitway quarter v>,'as not aliotted to the petitioner at Raipur, he made a joint repressntation aioni with other empioyees 'to retain ths quarter allotted to them at 'their orevious oiace of work'na. Even by ie'aer dated 30-7-'ii the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (D), Diesei, Loco shed. RaiDur, ciearlv intimated thai thev are not able to allot the quarters to the staff Dosted from Bt'. S^.,TV /^^^.;! 6V! ? ^•HsiS reauested the Sr. DPO. Bilaspur. to Dermit them to retain the Raiiwav auarters tjli alternative oiTangement is made. Thereafter, the Sr. DPO. BHaspur, vide letter aated 26-2-2003 fdr»vardedthe ioint reoresentafion to the Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Saslwav, Koikata. to grant necessary permisslon^ i'Oi' retention. of the Raiiway quarters at old station for furfhec oeriod on normai rent for 30 empioyees tilt aiiotment of auarters at Diesel Loco shed, Raipur. Thereafter, nothing has ueen heard •:liirlff!"r^Tipn by the petitioner, therefore, he retained the quarter tlil 20-2-2002. Qn 31-5-2002 dues of the deducted. petitloner retired from service. From the retiral Detitioner an amount of Rs.89.170/- was been 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid sction of the respondent authdrities, the petitioner preferred an appiication being O.A.No.89 of2007 before the CAT, which was dismissed by order dated 31-10-2007. Thus, this petifion. 4. Shri Rao, learned oounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without issuing any notice and without • affording an opportunity of hearing the amount has been deducted from the retiral dues ofthe petitioner. Even the rate of penal charges was also not communicated to the oetitioner. Learned counsel further submits that aiong with the petitloner some other employees aiso resided in the quarters, which were allotted to them at the old place of posting, but no action has been taken against them. 5. On thsother hand, Ms Hamida Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that whiie the petitioner was transferred to Raipur, he was ailowed to retain the quarter at BMY, which was under his occupation at the time of transfer with ciear instruction that he is allowed to retain the said quarter for a maxlmum period of two years on normal rent or tiil ailotmsnt of quarter at the new piace of posting, whicheverwas sarlier. The petitioner instead of vacating the quarter within two years occupied the same for about five years. "^? •ffav' We have heard learned counsel aoDea for ths parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that the petitioner was transferred from BMY, Chorada to Raipur and a clear instruction was issued that the petitioner is allowed to retain the quarter at BMY Gharoda for a period of maximum two yearsat normai rent ortilt the aliotment of quarter at new place of posting, whichever was earlier. There was a condition that eifher the petitioner would get ailotment of a qusrter at the new placeof posting or he could retain the quarter at the oid place of postjng for a maximum period oftwo years. In case the ailoiment of auarter could not have been made at the new place of posting, after completion of two years period, the petitioner ought to have vacated the quarter allotted to him at the old piaee of posting. Since the petitioner had retained the same, unauthorizsdly, beyond the period oftwo years i.e. up to a period of five years, the penal rent was charged from the petitioner for occupying the quarter beyond the period of two years from the date of his transfer to Raipur. The learned CAT appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its ietter and spirit rightiy dismissed the original applicatien filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Isarned CAT is just & proper and does not warrant any interference ofthis Court. With regard to submission of learned counsel appearing for th® petitioner that some other employees aiso resided In the quarters, which were allotted to them at the oid place of posting, but no action has been taken against them is conoerned, the s—~"r I.'UiteSlttU-B.&LB, "sjfeigggl s Gowri equaiity clause contained in Article 14 shouid be invoked only where the parties are similarty situated and where orders oassed in their favour are iegal and not iiiegal. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab & another v. Surjit Singh & Others , observed as under: "39. We woutd, parting make an observation that the submission ofthe leamed counseithat only because some juniors have got the benefrt; the same by itself cannot be a ground for eidending the same beneflt to the respondents herein. !t is now well known that the equaiity clause contained in Article 14 shouid be invoked oniy where the parties are' simitariy situated and where orders passed in their favour are legai and iiot iltega!. It has a positive concept." 10. Applying the well settled principles of !aw to the facts of the case on hand and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd-/ . Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ^*'"^-.-.^ Judge ' ' ^S.I;:: '• (2009) 9 SCC 514