Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Uoi And Ors vs Dr. Ub Mathur And Ors on 16 May, 2017
Author: K.S. Jhaveri
Bench: K.S. Jhaveri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2656 / 2001
1. Union of India though Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India,
Western Region, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Dr. U.B. Mathur, r/o A-25, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, posted as
Director Pal Lab, GSI (W.R.) Jaipur.
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur,
through it's Registrar, 17, Shivaji Marg, Near Diggi House, Ram
Singh Road, Jaipur-302001.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Judgment 16/05/2017
1. By way of this writ petition, the Central Government has challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the CAT') whereby the CAT has allowed the original application preferred by the original applicant respondent herein.
2. After considering the reply filed by the Union of India, the CAT has in para 9 observed as under:
"In the instant case, it is abundantly clear that the applicant was residing in the accommodation allowed to his wife by the University of Rajasthan and the applicant was paid HRA in view of the provisions contained in clause 5(c) of (Part V) FRSR-
(2 of 4) [CW-2656/2001] HRA & CCA. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated. In our view, the instant case is squarely covered by the order passed in S.G.Rajarshi vs. UOI & Ors. OA No.822 of 1991, decided on 26.10.1994 by Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. In view of the order passed in the aforesaid O.A by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal, the applicant is entitled to HRA in the instant case and the impugned order dated 10/13.5.1996 and 16.7.1996 are liable to be quashed and set aside,"
3. Taking into consideration the earlier decision of Bombay Bench of the CAT the issue was decided in favour of the applicant as under:
(i) quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10/13.5.1996 and 16.07.96 and declare that the applicant is entitled to HRA as admissible to Central Govt. employees;
(ii) applicant is also entitled to refund of the amount of HRA which was paid to him and subsequently recovered along with interest @ 12% per annum."
4. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon two conditions which were referred to by the original applicant in the original application which reads as under:
Conditions for Drawl of House Rent Allowance:
(a) -----
(b) -----
(c) A Government Servant shall not be entitled to house rent allowance if:
(i) -----
(ii) ----
(iii) his wife/her husband has allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-
Government organisation such as Municipality, Port Trust, etc. whether he/she (3 of 4) [CW-2656/2001] resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her."
5. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Bombay Bench of the CAT of which para 12 to 14 reads as under:
"12. As per para 5 (C)(iii) conditions of drawal of House Rent Allowance applicable to employees of respondent No.2 (part-V- HRA and CCA- Swamy-s Compilation of FRSR) (at page 128-130) it is clear that employees of respondent No.1 shall not be entitled to HRA if such employees wife, or husband has been allotted Government accommodation at the same station by Central Government, State Government and Autonomous Body, Public Undertaking or Semi Government Organisation etc., therefore, she was not entitled to get HRA for the above said period, therefore, recovery has rightly been ordered.
13. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent relied on Gurvinder Kang & Others vs. Director of Education and Ors.
reported in 2000 (53) DRJ 332 and Rajni Devi vs. U.O.I. (Writ Petition Civil No.7132/2008) decided on 18.08.2009.
14. I have heard all the counsel and perused the pleadings as well as judgments relied upon. The question before me is whether an employee of ITDC can be denied HRA in view of settlement arrived at between ITDC and whether excess amount could not be recovered from the employee of ITDC on the ground that she was sharing accommodation allotted to her husband by the Central Government without regularizing the said accommodation in her name after the retirement of her husband."
6. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Bombay Bench of the CAT has rightly been followed by the CAT of Jaipur Bench, Jaipur which has not been challenged by the Central Government. Even otherwise, the net amount involved in the case (4 of 4) [CW-2656/2001] was Rs.55,000/- only.
7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. (VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/01