Chronic Degenerative Diseases Qualify As "Severe Illness" Under Railway Board Circulars; Penal Rent Imposed For Retention Of Government Accommodation Cannot Be Sustained: Delhi HC
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that directed regularization of a railway employee's retained government accommodation. The Court held that chronic degenerative conditions such as osteoarthritis constitute "severe illness" under applicable Railway Board circulars, thereby entitling the employee to regularization of the retained quarter and exemption from damage or special licence fee charges during the period of retention.
The respondent, a railway officer, was initially allotted government accommodation in New Delhi during his service. In 2017, following his transfer to East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar, he was permitted to retain the accommodation for eight months on medical grounds due to his spouse’s illness. After expiry of the permitted period in July 2018, the authorities declared the retention unauthorized and imposed damage rent.
In April 2019, the officer was transferred to Modern Coach Factory, Rai Bareilly, and sought regularization of the accommodation under Railway Board circulars. His request was rejected, and damage rent was imposed from July 2018. He vacated the quarter in May 2019. Subsequently, the authorities assessed damage rent of Rs. 20,60,450, recovering part from his retirement gratuity and directing payment of the balance.
The officer filed representations seeking waiver, citing similar cases where damage charges were relaxed. These were not accepted, leading him to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal quashed the orders imposing damage rent and directed consideration of waiver by the Railway Board. The Union of India challenged this order before the High Court.
The Court recorded that the petition was filed after significant delay. It referred to the principle of delay and laches, quoting: “Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, ‘procrastination is the greatest thief of time’ and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix.”
On the medical grounds, the Court observed that the authorities had earlier accepted osteoarthritis as a severe illness when granting retention. Later, however, the Principal Chief Medical Director opined otherwise. The Court noted: “Once on an earlier occasion, permission was granted to retain the government accommodation for a period of eight months on medical grounds, there is no occasion to deviate from the same and not to extend the said period on medical grounds.”
The Court further stated: “On the one hand it has been opined that ‘Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease’ and on the other hand, it was not accepted as ‘Severe Illness’ as the patient was not admitted to the hospital at any given point of time. The same runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the power to relax.”
It highlighted the definition of chronic illness: “The word ‘chronic’ has been defined as ‘happening or existing frequently or most of the time’… A disease that continues or occurs again and again for a long time: a medical condition of prolonged duration.”
The Court also cited WHO’s description: “Osteoarthritis is chronic and often progressive, so changes happen gradually over time. In severe cases, it can make the joint unusable and cause long-term pain… Osteoarthritis can greatly reduce the quality of life.”
Finally, the Court recorded: “Once there is finding by the Principal Chief Medical Director that the applicant’s wife suffered from ‘Osteoarthritis’, which is a chronic degenerative disease, it cannot be accepted that the same would not fall in the category of ‘Serious Illness’.”
The Court stated: “Considering the above, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. It is apparent that the consequential order has been passed by the Petitioner authorities despite there being a specific direction to the Petitioner to refund the amount recovered and after giving the benefit of relaxation of damage (penal charges).”
“Needless to say, the Respondent is at liberty to seek contempt or pursue other remedies in accordance with law. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present case. The present petition is dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC with Mr. Siddharth Bajaj and Mr. Sujeet Choudhary, Advocates
Case Title: Union of India & Anr. vs Raj Kumar Manocha
Case Number: W.P.(C) 17418/2025
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetrapal, Justice Amit Mahajan
