High Court Kerala High Court

Union Of India Represented By vs M.Mariappan on 8 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Union Of India Represented By vs M.Mariappan on 8 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (CAT).No. 590 of 2010(S)


1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,
3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER,
4. ESTATE OFFICER & DIVISIONAL
5. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,

                        Vs



1. M.MARIAPPAN, S/O. MOOKAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.K.MURALEEDHARAN KAIMAL, SC,RAILWA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY

 Dated :08/11/2010

 O R D E R
                   C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
                     BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
                   --------------------------------------------
                       O.P. (CAT) No. 590 of 2010
                   --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

O.P. is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal directing the railways to refund penal rent collected from the

respondent. We have heard standing counsel appearing for the

petitioners, and have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal.

Respondent was removed from service by the railways and thereafter

his occupancy of the quarters was treated as irregular and he was asked

to pay penal rates. However, his dismissal later got modified leading to

restoration of the respondent in service. However, railways did not

refund the penal rent collected from the respondent’s salary for the

period his occupancy was treated as irregular after removal from

service. The Tribunal found that once respondent was restored in

service, he was entitled to continue in quarters and there was no

justification to demand any penal charges. We are in complete

agreement with the view of the Tribunal. In our view, O.P. is a

OP(CAT) 590/2010 2

completely unnecessary litigation. Consequently the same is

dismissed.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.

(BHABANI PRASAD RAY)
Judge.




kk

OP(CAT) 590/2010    3