Employees State Insurance Corporation vs B D Patted S/O Dyamappa on 8 November, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Employees State Insurance Corporation vs B D Patted S/O Dyamappa on 8 November, 2010

Author: N.Kumar

Bench: N.Kumar

 2  The J0i1it'Dj.rector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

Dated this the 8th day of N0Vember,'--2it--O   ~

PREsENT'*«ﬁ[
THE HON'BLE MR. ,_JUs1'*1(_:'E N.   3
 

THE HON'BLE NAGARAJ

Wrtt.Petitic§t1NbL'.917Q2»5j_ofv2Q0.'§ rs--cA'n
B EENE,  ' ' Lt ' t

I .EInp].Qyees  In'surafi"ceV--Corp0ration
:.RepreSeh_--ted by its "DV_1fr'ector General
Parichdeetpfﬁ-havaﬁ=.__ " __
 Road   
New>D_e1hi ._ '

 Corporation
. 2 Sub--Reg1_ona1 ofﬁce
 V * Saljvodaya. Circle
' ---  Keshwapur
HvI..1.blt1~--_.~ ' 23 . . Petitioners

 AA ,  v"('E.3y Sri V M Sheelavanth and V Narasimha H0113,

Advocates] t



AND:

Sri B D Patted

S/o Sri Dyamappa

Aged about 53 years 1

Superintendent, Benefits Branch 

ES} Corporation

Sub--Regional office     '   
Hubli -- 23  h  '..-,R"esp*ondent

{By sri-N' G Padtalgetlljkitixrocate}

Thisg'W1'it----Petition-.is_ 'fi.led_1inder Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constituti'o.n;f_of Indiajjuraying to set aside the order dated
15-11~2o'o2,, in OPEENO.€47-/2()O'2"vide Annexure--A on the file of
the I-I_on'bl_e "Cat, Bangalore. Bench, reserving liberty to the
petitioners, to 're'c0VerV't'the__ HRA drawn from 1-1-1993 to
31--1--20(),2"1n viewuof R1.;Ie'"5(C}[1ii} Central Government HRA
Rules Goverriing its Eniplioyees.

 Petition coming on for hearing this day,

  'J.,'e-niade the following:

ORDER

The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the oﬁrder passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that the respondent is entitled to HRA for the periopdlduring which he shared accommodation allotted hy Karnataka University as his case do not of I-{RA & CCA General Rules and[(jrders,_ for it referred to as the 'Rules'.

2. The respondent as atesuperintendent 1n the Employees Statel'En.st1lrapice White he was Working at Dharwad, allotted to his wife, a Seni--or~ College of Education. Dharwad; She paid rent as per the rules However, during the said period HRA from the Government. On com5inglA'top knowvvofpthe same, the petitioner directed the ~res-poiidentgltov deposit a sum of Rs.80,981--00, the amount lliseceivevdduljy respondent as HRA on the ground that Rule 5{'c.}a(iii}'l.lof the Rules are applicable to the case. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an application before the relied on the judgment of the Bombay Bench of CAT, E 4 which has held that though the University is a autonomous body, such an authority would not fall within Rule 5{iii) of the said Rules. Following the said judgment, by the impugned order, the endorsement demanding payment xget aside and it was held that the respondent notwithstanding the fact that he Vytas ,ini'the7.__ accommodation allotted to heréby the_University,.. the same, the ESI Corporationlvlisibefore

3. The facts are" no~t7'in _.dispute,_ The entire case I'€VO1VF;S"I'C1.J,IEl"¢f1 thefi.;inte'rpretationto he placed on Rule 5{c)(iii) of the Rules", nrhich 4as._u'n__der:

" 5u(a}p _x'{C} Government servant shall not be entitled to House Rent Allowance, if»

4. (1') he shares Govemment accommodation allotted rentfree to another ., servant; or {it} he/ she resides in ll allotted to his/her parents/'son/daughter;by':J 3 the Central Gouemmertt, l'-State lGooerrtment,..Vl"

an Autono mous' ' [Pu-bzlic Under Semi- Government Or_aan_tea.tton 2 a Municipalit},~t,V_ lVa_tionaltZed'llBanks, Ltfe Insurance ilndia, etc. {:f;"i1"}""::;..:,'-.:"'1l',9 been allotted the same station by the "'Ce'r1tra_I_ Oo've_rnment,V_ State Government, an eA}i:)~tjo_ztorT:ou.s"'*Public Undertaking or semi- « Govverrtmer1t__ ~ , Organization such as ajvfuntc-ipaI_tty«,.._'F'ort Trust, etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/ she A.residesmseparately in accommodation rented l.4"lb;y"htm/her.

A perusal of the aforesaid rules makes it clear that allotted rent--free to another Government Servant, then he is V if_ba"'A_Govemment servant shares Government accommodation not entitled to HRA. Similar is the case with the Servant who shares accommodation allotted' parents/son/daughter by the Central 3 authorities mentioned therein. {.iili}_:

husband sharing accommodation sarne; .stationw by the Central Government,l"Sltate Public Undertaking or':'semi--'GoyernmVe11t.Organization. such as Municipality, Port resides in that accommodation: V _ or H separately in accommodation .

5. *f'helq1_;.estion_l'..ts whether the autonomous authority li1{€.§jp:the'~University ispalso included in the said provision. A carefu_llA1*eading_ of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that it .accommodation allotted by the Central Government, State Goyernment or a public undertaking or semi--Government Organizations which are Included in the said provision. l a University is an autonomous body, it cannot be saij E/M which is taken by the Tribunal. in that View of the matter. we lg/"

to be a public undertaking as understood in commor1l,:l15a.r1ance, when it is specifically stated that it should Port Trust, etc., There is no intention in the --p'ro'vision._to"__ include autonomous body like a Itlniyersityr isl~._ V the reason why the Tribunal at ll-Joinbay hlalslheid 'thaththe (' '1], which University does not fall underthe saidl"subA~scliaulse has weighed with the i'ﬁibunal''at'l3anig"a1ore. --

6. of this case, We are satisfiedt"'rvthajt Wasviiijdaying the rent for the acconiinodationl'allottedlitoil and when the husband shared the said 'ia.ccomnJodatio.n', in the absence of any express &_ prvoyisivon .holding«t_h_at; he is not entitled to HRA and when the ' same for over eight years and it is not a case of any H 1nisrepresenta:=tion practiced by the respondent on the petitioneyrdlcoupled with the fact that he has retired from ., servicellllit would be too harsh to take a view different from one do not see any merit in this petition. Accardirtéiy, it is dismissed.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court