IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.215 of 2011 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hazipur 3. The D.R.M., E.C. Railway, Sonepur 4. The Divisional Commercial Manager, E.C. Railway, Sonepur, 5. The Assistant Commercial Manager, E.C. Railway, Sonepur 6. The Chief Commercial Inspector, E.C. Railway, Sonepur, 7. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, E.C. Railway, Sonepur Versus Basant Kumar Sinha, son of Late Ram Vinod Singh, R/o village – Bhusara, P.S. – Gaighat, District - Muzaffarpur ----------- 2/ 25.2.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2009 passed in O.A. No. 356 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by the official respondents against the action of the railways refusing the payment of total amount of Rs.2,34,668 pertaining to DCRG, said to be illegally withheld, with interest. The case of the respondent was that when he was working as Commercial Superintendent, Muzaffarpur, and his retirement was approaching fast, he requested the railway authorities to take charge of obsolete tickets by his representations dated 22.3.2006, 19.7.2006, 8.8.2005 and 15.9.2006. But, however, by order dated 5.4.2006, one H.K. Ram, the Commercial Inspector was deputed to take over charge of the ticket stocks. According to him, the said H.K. Ram reported that one team would come to set all the tickets to fire. Said Sri Ram was also informed on 19.12.2006 to take charge of obsolete tickets within 72 hours but he refused to take over the 2 charge. Then, one Shri Gufran Ahmad was directed to take charge of the obsolete tickets but since the number of such tickets was sixty lacs, he too showed his inability to take charge. As the pleadings would show, the respondent had informed the railways on 15.9.2006 for making arrangement of payment of DCRG. He also informed that one set of key of the store of tickets was with him and other was with Shri H.K. Ram and sought instruction as to when he would hand over the key. He was, then ordered to hand over the key to Shri Ram and accordingly, he handed over the key to him. As the railway refused to pay the respondent the amount of DCRG and withheld the amount on the ground of adjustment for the obsolete tickets and also that he has not handed over the charge but, however, the Tribunal, after going into the materials on record showing that the respondent, right from 8.2.2006, had been requesting the railway authorities to make arrangement for taking over the charge of tickets, and taking into consideration the facts that the respondent was due to retire on 30.9.2006, the railway was not initiating any action against the erring officials and that no departmental proceeding was pending against the respondent, allowed the claim of the respondent. In the circumstances, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal was perfectly right in directing the railway to pay due amount of DCRG including interest accruing thereon to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. We also concur with the opinion rendered by the Tribunal. However, we extend the aforesaid period of time to another three 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the present order. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations/directions. Anil/ (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)