ORDER : A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. 1. Special leave granted. 2. On the request of the respondent, we had requested Mr. Ranjit Kumar to assist us on behalf of the respondent by our order dated 22-11-1993. Mr. Ranjit Kumar placed before us the case of the respondent and the relevant law on the subject. We thank him for the assistance rendered to this Court. 3. The respondent having retired from service was expected to vacate the quarter occupied by him as an employee of the Railway Administration. He failed to do so. In proceedings bearing No. 148 of 1988 arising out of MA No. 223 of 1987 in the matter of TA No. 1019 of 1986, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench) passed an order to the following effect: "Therefore, in our opinion, he has really committed contempt of this Tribunal. However, we give him a last chance to vacate the quarter and pay the arrears of rent within a month failing which he would be sent to civil prison until he complies with the order passed by the Tribunal in MA No. 223 of 1987 and the present order." 4. After this order was passed, since the respondent did not comply, the Railway Administration deducted the amount due from the pension relief admissible to the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed OA No. 599 of 1992 in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Calcutta Bench). This OA was heard by the Judicial Member, Shri N. Sen Gupta who was also a Member of the Bench which heard the application and passed the extracted order. Even after taking note of the earlier order passed by the Bench to which he was a party, and was in fact its author, he proceeded to pass the impugned order by which the Department was precluded from recovering the amount from the pension relief and directed refund of the amount already recovered. What is now surprising is that after taking note of the earlier order in para 4 of the impugned order, instead of taking action against the respondent as per the earlier order, he directed the Railway Administration to refund the amount and even left the matter in regard to grant of complimentary passes open. Therefore, instead of taking action in contempt against the respondent, by the impugned order, the Department was prevented from realising its dues from the respondent who overstayed the period post-retirement. Therefore, instead of taking action in contempt against the respondent, by the impugned order, the Department was prevented from realising its dues from the respondent who overstayed the period post-retirement. The Tribunal also did not take note of this Court's decision in Union of India v. Shiv Charan, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 386 , by which this Court had permitted deduction of the charges due from the occupant from the dues payable to him. Besides, no valid ground has been given for not permitting the deduction to the Department. We find it difficult to comprehend the rationale for the view taken by the Judicial Member. Instead of ensuring delivery of possession from a person who, in violation of the Tribunal's order, was continuing to occupy the quarter and who could not have been said to have approached the Tribunal in OA No. 599 of 1992 with clean hands, the Tribunal has virtually rewarded him, in that, he can now continue to remain in occupation of the quarter indefinitely and also not pay the charges for the same. The learned Member should have visualised the situation that would arise by the said order. We, therefore, cannot allow the order to stand. 5. In the result, we set aside the impugned order dated 25-2-1993. We further make it clear that the Railway Administration will be free to take possession of the quarter from the respondent, if necessary, by use of force, if he does not deliver the possession within 15 days. The Railway Administration will also be free to recover its dues from any amount payable to the respondent and if the same falls short, the difference in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.