Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta - (1.) In our view this application should be dismissed; if we do'not do so, then the serious injustice will be meted. out to the litigant for reason given below:-
(2.) By the judgment and order impugned the learned Tribunal has passed a perfect and just order. Fact of the case as has been correctly recorded by the learned Tribunal is summarised hereunder. First respondent, Masapu Govinda Rao and the second respondent, son of first respondent, jointly approached the learned Tribunal in or about 1997 with a prayer for allotment of the quarter in favour of the son, second respondent who was the second applicant before the learned Tribunal on the strength of 'father and son' rule. Under the extant rule if a son is employed in the Railway Establishment, the quarter allotted to the father is ordinarily allotted to son out of turn basis provided the son* fulfils requisite conditions. The relevant conditions are that son must be eligible to be allotted with this type of quarters; he or she must not be drawing House Rent Allowance and he or she must be staying with the father in the same quarter for continuous six months. This rule was not followed and no allotment was made. As such, the earlier application was filed.
(3.) The learned Tribunal by an order dated 17th March, 1997 which is illegible, however, must be prior to 14th July, 1997 disposed of earlier application. By the said order the learned Tribunal directed the Genera. Manager to consider the case of allotment in favour of respondent no.2 exercising his power of relaxation. The learned Tribunal found admittedly the applicant no.2 (respondent no.2 herein) is eligible to be allotted quarter and he did not draw House Rent Allowance for six months. However, factually respondent no.2 completed staying with his father before his retirement for a period of 12 days short of six months.;