- (1.) THE petitioner at the relevant time in 1992 was a Travelling Ticket Examiner in the Indian Railways. THE respondent No. 8 at that time was a Head Ticket Collector.
(2.) AS a Travelling Ticket Examiner, the petitioner was not entitled to a railway accommodation of Type-III but was en titled only to a Type-II accommodation. The dispute arose when the petitioner occupied without allotment a type-III railway accommodation allegedly by virtue of an exchange of accommoda tion by mutual consent with another rail way employee Sri M. M. Sharma. Their petitioner has filed as an-nexure-3 to the writ petition an order of policy dated 16-2-1983 to which learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention in an attempt to justify that rail way employee can be permitted to occupy railway accommodation higher than his entitlement by paying additional rent. In that very document it has been specifically clarified that where allotment of a higher type of quarter is to be made to an employee the personal sanction of the Divisional Railway Manager will have to be obtained.
(3.) IN view of the admitted fact in the present case there is no personal sanction of the Divisional Railway Manager, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had no right to occupy type-III accommodation whether by mutual consent or by allot ment. Faced with the situation, the petitioner has based his claim upon a com munication dated 15-7-1993 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition ). This communication is from the Railway Board to the Chief Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and it says that on the basis of a representation dated 26-6-1993 from the wife of the petitioner it has been desired that the occupation by the petitioner if Type-III accommodation may be regularised. Although it has not been stated in the said letter as to who has desired the same, but, it is admitted case of the parties that this was the desire of the then Minister of State for Railways.;