BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 1. 1. 98 (Annex. 6) in O. A. No. 140/94. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was in occupation of the Government premises while in service of the Railways. The petitioner retired from service on 30. 11. 85 from the post of Junior Head Shroff. At that time he was in occupation of Railway Quarter No. T-177 B at Railway D. S. Colony, Jodhpur, however he did not vacate the same and therefore proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1971' ). The Estate Officer, Northern Railway Jodhpur, made an order on 17. 3. 88 for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises which has been produced at Annex. 1. The Estate Officer vide Annex. 1 determined that the petitioner is liable to pay rent at Rs. 28. 50 per month for two months after his superannuation w. e. f. 1. 12. 85 to 31. 1. 86 upto which he was entitled to keep occupation of the premises after retirement under the Rules and from 1. 2. 86 to the date of vacating the premises for use and occupation at market rate which is to be 10% of the emoluments or four times of the assessed rent whichever is higher and made him liable to make payment of the electrical charges w. e. f. 1. 12. 85 to 31. 1. 86 which were determined i. e. Rs. 1525. 92 and for the remaining period until vacation it was to be determined as per the reading of the meter installed at said public premises. Petitioner was given one month's time to vacate the premises. On failure to comply with direction, in addition to aforesaid charges the Estate Officer also ordered to pay Rs. 100/- per day by way of penalty. The relevant part of the order of Estate Officer reads as under: In view of the aforesaid discussion I order that respondent is an unauthorised occupant of public premises (i. e. Rly. Qr. No. T-177 B ). I do hereby order in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Sec. 5 (i) of the Public Premises (Eviction or Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 that the respondent Shri Sultan Singh in occupation of the said public premises shall vacate the same (i. e. Rly. Qr. No. T/177b within a period of one month from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. On failure to do so the respondent shall be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 100/- per day after expiry of said one month. Even though he fails to vacate same public premises respondent shall be liable to evict with help of Police force. In addition to this I do hereby further order that respondent is directed to make the payment of rent Rs. 28. 50 per month w. e. f. 1. 12. 85 to 31. 1. 86 and from 1. 2. 86 to till the date of vacation market rent @ 10% of emoluments or four times the assessed rent whichever is higher. Respondent is also directed to make the payment of Electrical charges w. e. f. 1. 12. 85 to 31. 10. 86 i. e. Rs. 1525. 92 and w. e. f. 1. 11. 86 to till the date of vacation of Qr. the Electrical charges will be assessed as per Meter reading installed in the said public premises". The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur which had been dismissed as barred by time on 9. 11. 89 (Annex. 2) and revision against the order of the District Judge has also been dismissed in default on 6. 9. 90 (Annex. 3 ). Thereafter when the respondents commenced deducting the aforesaid amount including the amount determined by way of penalty at Rs. 100/- per day during the occupancy of the house after expiry of one month from the date of the order of Estate Officer dt. 17. 3. 88, the petitioner challenged such deduction by way of Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal inter alia on the ground that levying of penalty by the Estate Officer was void ab initio inasmuch as Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to impose any penalty under the provisions of the Act of 1971 and it was liable to be ignored and that the said unauthorised void levy of penalty cannot be recovered from the amount of pension payable to the petitioner.
(3.) THE said Original Application has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dt. 1. 1. 98 on the ground that contention of the petitioner is barred by principles of res judicata and also same claim cannot be entertained on account of laches and delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Central Administrative Tribunal has failed to consider the detailed contentions raised by the petitioner before them which has even been submitted in writing. The application was heard by the Tribunal on 22. 10. 96. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been announced almost 21 months thereafter by a laconic order without considering any of the grounds raised by the petitioner including one stated in the written submissions. We find substance in this contention that respondent has submitted a detailed written argument before the Tribunal on 23. 10. 1996 in which a plea has been taken in unequivocal terms that the order imposing penalty at the Rs. 100/- per day for continued occupation of the premises after one month of the order dt. 17. 3. 88 was nullity and liable to be ignored without challenging at that time. The plea of nullity can be raised even in response to any action to execute that order. The decisions of Courts including Supreme Court had been referred to in the said reply. ;