Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) By means of instant writ petition, the Petitioner (Union of India) has sought for quashing of the judgment & order dated 19.2.2010, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Krishna Nath Chaturvedi v/s. Union of India and Ors. Original Application No. 80 of 2007
(2.) Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the opposite party Krishna Nath Chaturvedi is a Goods Driver in Railways. While posted at Lucknow, he was allotted residential quarter in Railway Colony, Alambagh, Lucknow. On 28.5.1999 he was transferred from Lucknow to Rae Bareli where no residential accommodation was allotted to him. He applied for retention of the said quarter at Lucknow and vide order dated 13.9.1999 the opposite party allowed to retain the quarter for the period 28.5.1999 to 27.7.1999 on normal rent and from 28.7.1999 to 27.1.2000 on double rent. The opposite party was transferred back to Lucknow on 07.2.2001. He submitted an application on 10.4.2001 before Respondent No. 2 for regularisation of his possession over the aforesaid quarter. However, no order was passed on the said application. After lapse of about four years, order dated 18.3.2005 was passed directing for realisation of penal rent from the opposite party w.e.f. 28.1.2000. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No. 1 filed O. A. No. 196 of 2005 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 12.9.2005 with the direction to the opposite party to make afresh representation within ten days and the same was to be decided within a period of two months and till then no recovery was to be made.
(3.) The opposite party No. 1 submitted a representation in pursuance of the order of Tribunal dated 12.9.2005 and the competent authority rejected the same by means of order dated 31.1.2006 by holding that under Rule possession could not be regularised in favour of opposite party No. 1 and he should handover the possession to the Administration, otherwise not only damage rent would be charged but also disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him. The said order was communicated by means of letter dated 03.2.2006. The opposite party No. 1 in response to the said order informed the Authority that since his possession has not been regularised, he has vacated the quarter on 23.5.2006 which may be allotted to some other person. The Petitioner No. 3 issued an order dated 01.2.2007 by which he worked out a recovery of Rs. 2,26,247/ -damage rent for unauthorised retention of quarter for the period 28.1.2000 to 05.05.2006 which was challenged by the opposite party No. 1 by way of filing Original Application No. 80 of 2007 before the learned Tribunal and the same was allowed vide judgment & order dated 19.2.2010 and order dated 01.2.2007 was set aside. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have filed the instant writ petition.;