[2026:RJ-JP:1169-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11817/2017 Pati Ram Son Of Shri Narottam Singh, Resident Of Village Ardaya, Po- Achnera, Tehsil Kirauli, District Agra U.p., At Present Employed On The Post Mechanical Driver Grade-Ii In The Office Sse P Way, Bundi Rajasthan, Wcr. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through General Manger, West Central Railway, Jabalpur Mp 2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway, Kota Division, Kota. 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, West Central Railway, Kota Division, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aniket Vyas Mr. Karan Singh Nathawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 12/01/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the Original Application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs.2,12,920/- from the petitoner, who is Class-IV employee, from his retiral dues on account of penal rent for his overstaying in the Government quarter. [2026:RJ-JP:1169-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-11817/2017] 3. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application filed on behalf of the petitioner observed as under:- “The respondents have also submitted that the applicant was verbally asked to vacate the railway quarter in question but he did not vacate the same and finally a notice was given on 30.04.2013 (Annexure-A/7) and the applicant has nowhere denied that he was not asked to vacate the quarter verbally. The applicant replied on 28.05.2013 (Annexure A/8) to the aforesaid notice dated 30.04.2013 not give any response regarding whether he got any prior permission or whether any such request was pending with the Railway authorities for retaining the railway quarter at Kota while being posted at Bundi. The directions of the respondents as per Annexure A/11 letter dated 12.04.2001 do not come to the rescue of the applicant because in the first place they refer to the position as in 2001, and secondly the applicant never applied for any allotment on that basis. In view of the above position, as the applicant continued to retain in the Railway quarter at Kota without any permission, though being posted in Bundi the respondents are entitled to recover penal rent of Rs.2,12,920/- as calculated as per Annexure R/1 from the applicant and hence imposition of a penal rent as per Annexure A/1 order dated 09.01.2014 does not appear to be illegal or arbitrary. Thus, there is no ground to set aside order Annexure A/1 or grant any other relief sought for in the O.A.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner as the application submitted by the petitioner for retention of the Government quarter was not decided by the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner is a poor person Class IV employee and the respondents have erred in not deciding the application for overstaying in the Government quarter. [2026:RJ-JP:1169-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-11817/2017] 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was transferred from Kota to Bundi in the year 2009 and admittedly, he vacated the Government quarter in the year 2013, thus, overstayed in the Government quarter without having appropriate permission from the competent authority. 6. We have perused the record and in our considered view mere submitting an application does not confer any right to an employee for overstaying in the Government quarter and therefore the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-employee who overstayed in the government quarter without any permission from the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL DHAWAN /164