UOI and Others Vs. Surajdeo Podar and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 2736-2737 of 1998
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1676-76 A of 1993),
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1676-76 A of 1993),
Petitioner: UOI and Others
Respondent: Surajdeo Podar and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 2736-2737 of 1998
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1676-76 A of 1993),
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1676-76 A of 1993),
Judges: G. T. Nanavati & S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 05, 1998
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Railway Service – Allotment of residential accommodation – Bungalows allotted to senior officers – Lower level employees of Railways residing in the outhouses of such bungalows with the permission of the officers to whom the bungalows have been provided – Claim made by the employees for the allotment of the outhouses for them – Tribunal directing Railways to allot the outhouses to such employees – Whether such direction valid and legal. Held employees residing in the outhouses with the permission of the allottees not entitled to such accommodation. No such right accrue to them under the service rules. In the absence of any right to occupy or even entitlement to such occupation Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Railways to allot the outhouses to the employees.(Para 6)
Railway Service – Allotment of residential accommodation – Bungalows allotted to senior officers – Lower level employees of Railways residing in the outhouses of such bungalows with the permission of the officers to whom the bungalows have been provided – Claim made by the employees for the allotment of the outhouses for them – Tribunal directing Railways to allot the outhouses to such employees – Whether such direction valid and legal. Held employees residing in the outhouses with the permission of the allottees not entitled to such accommodation. No such right accrue to them under the service rules. In the absence of any right to occupy or even entitlement to such occupation Tribunal was beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Railways to allot the outhouses to the employees.(Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
Judgment
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondents are employees of Eastern Railway and are working in Jamalpur Workshop. They are staying in the out-houses of the Bungalows, allotted by the Railway to its senior officers, with permission of those officers. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer that the Railway should be directed to allot the out-houses in which they are staying directly to them, as a matter of their right. The Railway administration opposed that prayer on the ground that the Bungalows including the out-houses are allotted to the officers as they are entitled to that type of accommodation and that the out-houses are not independent premises which could be allotted to the respondents.
4. The Tribunal was of the view that “the out-houses attached to big Bungalows are an anachronism. They are relics of a feudal system in which Bara Sahib lives in a big Bungalow and a large number of servants are menials at their back and call live in the out-houses. All that applicants want is that they may be given the same out-houses as a matter of right as given to other employees at other stations and also at Jamalpur so that the applicants could live with dignity and their continuance would not be dependent on the whims of the allottee of the main Bungalow.”
5. Taking this view, the Tribunal directed the Railway Administration to allot the out-houses to the respondents within three months. The Union of India and the Railway Administration challenge that order in this appeal
6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the applicants had no such right and therefore the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Railway Administration to allot those out-houses to the concerned applicants. The learned counsel for the respondents could not show any rule or term of service entitling the applicants to reside in such out-houses, and fairly conceded that they do not have any such right. In showing its concern for the employees, the tribunal failed to consider this aspect. It also failed to appreciate that the out-houses are a part and parcel of the Bungalows allotted to the officers and that the officers are entitled to such type of accommodation. The respondents have been permitted to stay in the out-houses by the officers and their occupation of those out-houses is only permissive. As the applicants had failed to establish any right to occupy such premises or even their entitlement to such type of accommodation, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed their application. The Tribunal went much beyond its jurisdiction in giving the impugned direction and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
7. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The respondents are employees of Eastern Railway and are working in Jamalpur Workshop. They are staying in the out-houses of the Bungalows, allotted by the Railway to its senior officers, with permission of those officers. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, with a prayer that the Railway should be directed to allot the out-houses in which they are staying directly to them, as a matter of their right. The Railway administration opposed that prayer on the ground that the Bungalows including the out-houses are allotted to the officers as they are entitled to that type of accommodation and that the out-houses are not independent premises which could be allotted to the respondents.
4. The Tribunal was of the view that “the out-houses attached to big Bungalows are an anachronism. They are relics of a feudal system in which Bara Sahib lives in a big Bungalow and a large number of servants are menials at their back and call live in the out-houses. All that applicants want is that they may be given the same out-houses as a matter of right as given to other employees at other stations and also at Jamalpur so that the applicants could live with dignity and their continuance would not be dependent on the whims of the allottee of the main Bungalow.”
5. Taking this view, the Tribunal directed the Railway Administration to allot the out-houses to the respondents within three months. The Union of India and the Railway Administration challenge that order in this appeal
6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the applicants had no such right and therefore the Tribunal went beyond its jurisdiction in directing the Railway Administration to allot those out-houses to the concerned applicants. The learned counsel for the respondents could not show any rule or term of service entitling the applicants to reside in such out-houses, and fairly conceded that they do not have any such right. In showing its concern for the employees, the tribunal failed to consider this aspect. It also failed to appreciate that the out-houses are a part and parcel of the Bungalows allotted to the officers and that the officers are entitled to such type of accommodation. The respondents have been permitted to stay in the out-houses by the officers and their occupation of those out-houses is only permissive. As the applicants had failed to establish any right to occupy such premises or even their entitlement to such type of accommodation, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed their application. The Tribunal went much beyond its jurisdiction in giving the impugned direction and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.
7. We, therefore, allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. No order as to costs.
