Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajendra Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2018
Reserved on 13.08.2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
(This the 28th Day of August, 2018)
Hon'ble Mr. Gokul Chandra Pati, Member (Administrative)
Original Application No.330/1528/2011
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Rajendra Kumar aged about 38 years, son of late Sheo Prasad, working
as Labourer (Semi Skilled), under T.No.655, P.NO.8475, in ordnance
Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur Resident of H. No.192/6, Vijai Nagar,
Kanpur.
................ Applicant
By Advocate: Shri R.K. Shukla
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Deptt.
of Defence Production & Supplies, South Block, New Delhi -11.
2. The Secretary, Ordnance Factory Board, Indian Ordnance
Factories, Ministry of Defence, 10-A, Shaheed Khudiram Bose
Road, Kolkata -1.
3. The General manager, Ordnance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
..... ............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Abhinav Tripathi
ORDER
Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s)-
"i. to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of refusing to issue N.A.C. disentitling the applicant to get HRA (Annexure A-1).
ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay H.R.A. w.e.f. 9.7.2008 with other consequential benefits.
iii. to direct the respondents to produce entire records pertaining to denial of House Rent Allowance to the applicant."Page No. 2
2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of durwan w.e.f. 15.7.1995 under respondent No.3 and subsequently he was re-designated as labourer. The applicant, as per his entitlement, was allotted government a quarter but later on, he surrendered the aforesaid quarter to the respondent No.3 vide application dated 09.07.2008 (Annexure A-3).
3. After surrendering the Govt. accommodation, the applicant requested for grant of House Rent Allowances (in short HRA) as per existing Rules, but, as stated in the OA, the same was rejected by the respondents for the reasons that the application submitted by the applicant was misplaced. Thereafter, applicant again submitted an application in the prescribed proforma on 15.03.2010 (Annexure A-4) for grant of HRA and also moved an application on 29.01.2011 (Annexure A-5) folowed by reminder dated 01.06.2011 (Annexure A-6) for grant of HRA but the respondents did not take any decision on the said applications. Hence, applicant has filed the present Original Application.
4. On notice, counsel for the respondents filed counter ceply stating that although the applicant had surrendered the government accommodation on 09.07.2008 and requested to grant him HRA from 08.09.2008 but has per Rule 4(a)(i) of FR SR Part V- HRA & CCA the grant of House Rent Allowance shall be subject to the following conditions:-
"to those Government servants who are eligible for Government accommodation, the allowances will be admissible only if they have applied for such accommodation in accordance with the prescribed procedure, if any, but have not been provided with it, in places where due to availability of surplus Government Page No. 3 accommodation, special orders are issued by the Ministry of Works and housing from time to time making it obligatory for employees concerned to obtain and furnish ' no accommodation' certificate in respect of Government residential accommodation at their place of posting. In all other places no such certificate is necessary. "
5. It is further stated in the counter reply that as per SRO 149 dated 23.09.2004 the seniority list for issuing 'No Accommodation Certificate' is prepared on the basis of Basic Pay of the employees entitled for relevant category of the Government Quarters. "No Accommodation Certificate" (in short NAC) is issued to the employees when the quarters of particular category are not vacant and House Rent Allowance is granted to those employees who are issued 'No Accommodation Certificate" as per rules on the basis of seniority list prepared by the Factory in the light of existing Government instruction. It is also stated that since there were several employees placed above the applicant in the merit list, the applicant could not be issued 'No Accommodation Certificate' and due to availability of government accommodation in the relevant category.
6. Heard Shri R.K. Shukla, counsel for the applicant and Shri Abhinav Tripathi, counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings available on record. Learned counsel for the applicant at the time of haring stated that the applicant has been sanctioned H.R.A. w.e.f. 1.1.2014 which is also noted in the order dated 21.03.2018 in this OA. It was further submitted that the claim of the applicant that is pending now is sanction for HRA for the date of vacation of Government Quarter i.e. 09.07.2008 till 31.12.2014. Learned counsel also cited a judgment of Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta dated 17.05.2011 passed in W.P.C.T 111/2011 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Page No. 4 Ors, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble supreme Court vide judgment dated 26.09.2011 in SLP Appeal (Civil) No. 26234/2011 - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors.
7. Heard learned counsel for the respondents, who reiterated the respondents' pleadings to argue that as per rules, the applicant is not entitled to this relief prayed for in the OA.
8. From the pleadings and submissions of both the parties, it is clear that as per the existing rules, the employee is required to produce the 'No Accommodation Certificate' (in short NAC). In fact, the first relief prayed for in this OA is against the decision of the respondents not issue NAC to the applicant vide the order dated 10.06.2011 (Annexure A-1.) Hence, issue of NAC is necessary for sanction of HRA in favour of the applicant as the applicable rules governing sanction of HRA.
9. The impugned order dated 15.06.2011 regarding issue of NAC stated as under:-
" वषय : - एन० ए० सी० के स ब ध म स दभ :- आपका आवेदन प द० - 01 -06 -2011 संद भ त प के बंद ु सं० 1 , 2 , 3 के उ तर म यह अवगत कराया जाता है 'क तीन( )नमा *णय( के स बं,धत कम चार. िज ह एन० ए० सी० 0दान 'कया गया है वे सभी वर.यता स,ू च म आपसे व2र3ठ थे ।
जहाँ तक वत मान म एन० ए० सी० 0दान 'कये जाने का 08न है , आयुध )नमा णी बोड के )नद; शानस ु ार िजस =ेणी के आवास 2र>त ह? उस =ेणी के आवेदक( तो एन० ए० सी० 0दान 'कया जाना संभव नह.ं है ।
(िजत @ वेद.) उ० म० 0० / 0शासन कृते महा0बंधक"Page No. 5
10. It is seen from the impugned order that there is a seniority list being maintained by the respondents for issue of NAC. The rules/guidelines enclosed by the respondents with the Counter Reply do not mention any where that the NAC is to be issued seniority-wise. NAC is to be issued based on non-availability of quarter for the staff and if it is not available for a senior staff, then all the staffs, who have made representation/application for issue of NAC are entitled for issue of such NAC. It is not possible to issue NAC for senior employees due to non-availability of government quarter/accommodation and simultaneously have the quarters/accommodation for junior employees. Hence, the reason of seniority of the applicant mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.6.2011 (Annexure A-1 to the OA) is not as per the existing rules or guidelines of the Government and the same is also not reasonable.
11. In view of the above, and taking note of the submissions of the applicant's counsel that the applicant has been allowed NAC/HRA from 1.1.2014, the impugned order dated 10.06.2011 (Annexure A-1) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.3 to reconsider the case of the applicant for issue of NAC with effect from date prior to 1.1.2014 as per the rules, taking into account the physical availability of quarters/ accommodations available with the respondents for allotment to the applicant, keeping in mind the observations at Para 10 of this order and pass a speaking order copy of which be communicated to the applicant within a period three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12. The OA is allowed in part as above. No costs.
[Gokul Chandra Pati] Member-A Anand...