Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ajay Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 753 OF 2008
Jabalpur, this the 8th day of February, 2011
HONBLE MR. MANORANJAN MOHANTY, VICE CHAIRMAN
HONBLE MR. HRIDAY NARAIN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Ajay Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Jay Nath Prasad Yadav,
Aged about 32 years, Electrician (HS) Ordnance Factory,
Khamaria, Jabalpur
2. Deleted
3. Vinod Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri Kholbhara Sahu,
Aged about 35 years, DBW (HS) Ordnance Factory,
Khamaria, Jabalpur
4. Deleted
5. Deleted
6. Anupam Bhowmik, S/o Shri Inderjit Bhowmik,
Aged about 35 years, DBW (HS), Ordnance Factory,
Khamaria, Jabalpur
7. Shankar Lal, S/o Shri Narayan Sahu,
Aged about 59 years, DBW (HS), Ordnance Factory,
Khamaria, Jabalpur
8. Ramesh Prasad Gautam, S/o late Shri NP Gautam
Aged about 41 years, LDC LB Section,
Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur - Applicants
(By Advocate Shri S.K.Nagpal)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary,
Government of India, Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence Production & Supplies,
New Delhi.
2. Chairman-cum-Director General,
Ordnance Factory Board, 10-A,
Shaheed K.Bose Road,
Kolkata.
3. Senior General Manager,
Ordnance Factory Khamaria,
Jabalpur. - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.S.Chouhan)
ORDER
By Hriday Narain, AM.-
Heard Shri S.K.Nagpal, learned counsel for the Applicants and Shri S.S.Chouhan, learned counsel representing the Respondents.
2. Hearing of this case was concluded on 07.01.2011 and the parties had undertaken to file written submissions/arguments by 25.01.2011. However, written submissions were filed by the learned counsel for the Applicants only on 25.01.2011 and the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted his written arguments on 28.01.2011.
3. By way of MA No.724/2008, eight Applicants had filed a petition for jointly prosecuting this case. However, by way of MA No.602/2010 Applicants Nos. 4 & 5 had requested permission to withdraw from this case. They were permitted to do so vide order dated 07.09.2010. Similarly, by way of MA No.662/2010 Applicant No.2 had sought permission to withdraw from this case. He was also permitted to withdraw from this case vide order dated 07.09.2010. Accordingly, MA No.724/2008 is allowed in respect of five Applicants, whose names appear in the cause title now.
4. By way of filing MA No.360/2010 the Applicants have prayed for taking certain documents on record. The Respondents have filed their objection to the said MA. However, since no prejudice is caused to the Respondents, in taking these documents on record, MA No.360/2010 is allowed and the documents submitted by the Applicants are taken on record.
5. By way of MA No.1007/2010 the Respondents have submitted an application to take certain additional document on record. The document, in question, is only a circular dated 24.11.2010. Though, the learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the said circular is not relevant, we allow the MA No.1007/10 and take the document on record, so that the matter may be considered in all its completeness.
6. The Applicants are working in Ordnance Factory Khamaria (for short OFK). They had been allotted Government quarters, but they vacated/ surrendered the same after they constructed their own houses, by taking loan from the Government of India/ Banks/ financial institutions. The factual position with regard to the Applicants has been given in Annexure A-1 which is reproduced as under:-
S.No. 1 3 6 7 8 Name of the Applicant Ajay Kumar Yadav Vinod Kumar Sahu Anupam Bhowmik Shanker Lal Ramesh Prasad Gautam Designation Electrician (HS) DBW (HS) DBW (HS) DBW (HS) LDC Details of Quarter Allotted to applicant Qr. No. 233 W N Type Qr. No. 16/15 H Type Qr. No. 502 Q Type Qr. No. 1/6 N Type Qr. No. 6/2 Type II Date on which quarter surrendered by the applicant 5.12.05 8.2.06 May 2003 28.1.05 21.5.05 Name of the employee whom quarter subsequently allotted after surrender by applicant Sanjay Singh Pooran Singh Declared conde-mned and hence not allotted Gajendra Pal Singh Deba-shish Chakra-bory Date from which HRA not being paid 5.12.05 8.2.06 May 2003 28.1.05 21.5.05 Remarks Banks/ Financial institutions from which loan taken for construction of house Took loan from SBI Kha-maria Took loan from Bank of Rajasthan Took loan from ICICI Bank Took loan from SBI Civil Lines Took loan from Bank of India Panagar Branch
7. It is the contention of the Applicants that they were entitled to get House Rent Allowance (for short HRA) from the dates they vacated the Government quarters, but the same was not paid to them, despite repeated reminders, though similarly placed other employees had been granted HRA. The Applicants have submitted that they were subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of payment of HRA. The Applicants submitted their representations to the Respondents, which are marked collectively as Annexure A-2 and the replies to such representations from Respondent No.3 are collectively marked as Annexure-2R. The Applicants have further submitted that a large number of employees of the OFK are living outside the OFK Estate either in their own houses/ parental houses/ rented house and they are being paid HRA as adequate number of quarters are in inhabitable conditions and are not available with the OFK. The Applicants have relied heavily on Para 7(i) of Swamys Compilation of FRSR Part-V HRA & CCA, which is reproduced as under:-
7(i) A Government servant living in a house owned by him, his wife, children, father, or mother shall also be eligible for House Rent Allowance under these orders. xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Note :- The grant of House Rent Allowance to Government servants referred to in (i) above will be subject to the fulfillment of the same conditions as apply to a Government servant residing in private rented accommodation.
(iii) In the case of a Government servant who owns a house at a place of duty but resides in a rented house instead, House Rent Allowance shall be paid in respect of the rented house, if otherwise admissible.
8. The Applicants have further submitted that the Director General, Ordnance Factories Board (for short OFB), Calcutta vide letter dated 9th April, 2003 (Annexure A-4) has issued directions for payment of HRA to those employees, who vacated factory quarter after constructing their own houses by taking loans/HBA from the Government of India or from outside Government sponsored agencies, if otherwise found eligible.
9. The Applicants have submitted that in accordance with the orders of the Government of India (Annexure A-5) an employee who owns a house in the station of his posting or in adjoining municipal areas is also eligible for allotment of residential accommodation subject to payment of enhanced license fees as fixed by the government. According to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development Directorate of Estate OM dated 14th July, 1977 read with OM dated 7th August, 1987 (Annexure A-6) the recovery of license fee from house owning officers, who are allowed retention of accommodation has been revised w.e.f. 1.7.1987. According to the Applicants the above orders show that the Government of India desires that the house owning employees should not occupy Government quarters and shift to their own houses otherwise they have to obtain Government permission to retain the quarters and they are also liable to pay enhanced license fee.
10. The Applicants have also submitted that by Factory Order No.600 dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure A-7) 40 employees have been granted HRA w.e.f. 01.11.2008. Similarly vide Factory Order No.599 dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure A-8) 15 employees have been granted HRA w.e.f. 01.11.2008. Evidently no surplus Type-II, III & IV quarters are available. The Applicants have also contended that one Kishan Singh, whose name is at serial no.16 in Factory Order No. No.600 dated 27.10.2008, had also vacated the Government quarter and shifted to his own house and is exactly similarly situated as the Applicants, but the names of the Applicants do not find place in the said order for the reasons best known to Respondent No.3
11. The Applicants have submitted that there is no proper policy in the matter of grant of HRA and it is being treated as bounty to be granted at the discretion of Respondent No.3. The Applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
8(i) Release payment of HRA to the applicants from the dates they vacated/ surrendered Government quarters and shifted to their own houses;
(ii) To pay the arrears of HRA to the applicants within two months;
(iii) To pay interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears of HRA from the date the same became due to the date of actual payment.
(iv) award the cost of this OA
(v) Grant any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper by this Honble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The learned counsel for the Applicants vehemently argued that the case of the Applicants was squarely covered by the OFB letter dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4). The Applicants should have been granted HRA from the date they vacated factory quarters. In fact, similarly situated employees in various other Ordnance factories had been granted HRA on the basis of the said circular and there is no reason to discriminate against the Applicants in the matter of following the circular dated 09.04.2003. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicants that the Respondents have filed a copy of the letter dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure R-6) issued by the OFB, which states that the instructions contained in their circular letter dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4) shall be kept in abeyance with immediate effect. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.06.2008 (Annexure R-1) the OFB directed that the instructions contained in their letter dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4) shall be treated to be superseded/withdrawn.
13. The OFB Calcutta vide their letter dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure A-9) addressed to the General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi directed that grant of HRA to those employees, who availed HBA and constructed their own house and subsequently vacated government quarters prior to issue of OFB instruction No.3129/A/A, circulated through their letter dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure R-6), may be considered as per instructions contained in OFB circular no.20/12/83/A/IR(Pt) dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4). Applicant No.1 sought information under the Right to Information Act from the OFB, Calcutta as to whether the instructions contained in their letter dated 31.03.2009 addressed to the Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi (Annexure A-9) are applicable to all similarly situated employees in other Ordnance Factories including OFK Jabalpur. The Director and Public Information Officer, OFB, Kolkata vide their letter No.961/PIO/A/RTI dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure A-14) had replied that the directions contained in OFB letter No.263/A/A dated 31st March,2009 (Annexure A-9) addressed to General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi are applicable to all similarly situated employees in other Ordnance Factories including the OFK, Jabalpur. Since the Applicants are employees of the OFK, Jabalpur and they are covered by the directions given in the OFB letter No.263/A/A dated 31st March,2009 (Annexure A-9), it is clear that the Applicants were entitled for HRA. The OFB vide their letter No.263/A/A dated 02/04/2009 (Annexure A-19), addressed to the General Manager, Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur, issued similar directions as issued to the General Manager, Ordnance Clothing Factory, Avadi vide their letter dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure A-9) that grant of HRA to those employees who availed HRA and constructed their own houses and subsequently vacated Government quarters prior to issue of OFB instruction No.3129/A/A circulated through letter dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure R-6) may be considered as per instruction contained in OFB circular No.20/12/83/A/IR dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4).
14. One Shri N.K.Sharma, an employee of Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur sought information from the Public Information Officer of the Senior General Manager of the Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur as to whether the instructions contained in OFB Calcutta letter No.263/A/A dated 02.04.2009 (Annexure A-19) have been implemented in respect of employees of the GCF, Jabalpur and if so, the dates on which the employees vacated the government quarter after constructing their own houses and the date from which they have been granted HRA. The Additional General Manager and Public Relation Officer, GCF, Jabalpur vide letter No.GCF/1015/ PIO/ 0204/ 10 dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure A-20 filed by the Applicants along with MA No.360/2010) has intimated that based on the clarification of OFB No.263/A/A dated 02.04.2009, personnel who have constructed their house and subsequently vacated the Govt. Quarter after availing HBA from Govt./ Govt. sponsored agencies prior to 10.08.2007 have been considered for grant of HRA. With the aforesaid letter dated 19.02.2010 copies of Factory orders Nos.1733 & 1734 dated 11.06.2008 have been enclosed, which show the dates when the employees vacated the government quarters and the dates from which they have been granted HRA. The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that since the Applicants, in question, had vacated the Government quarters prior to 10.08.2007, they were clearly covered by the instructions of the OFB and were entitled for HRA. The Respondent No.3 has rejected the applications of the Applicants for grant of HRA vide his letter dated 22.06.2007 {Annexure A/2(R)Colly} in respect of the Applicants at serial no. 1 and 6 in this OA on the basis of circular dated 10.05.2007 issued by him which is at page 45 of the OA. It will be seen that the applications have been rejected after two and four years respectively, without application of mind as the cases of the Applicants are covered under the OFB letter dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4). The Applicants submitted representations against rejection of their applications for grant of HRA vide, representations dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure A-2). Similar representations were also submitted by other Applicants, which are filed collectively as Annexure A-2. However, there is no response from the Respondent No.3 and that is why the Applicants had to file the present OA. Non-grant of HRA to the Applicants amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the Applicants also argued that compensatory cost should be awarded to the Applicants in the interest of justice.
15. The learned counsel for the Applicants heavily relied upon the order of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal dated 31.12.2007 in the case of Mrs.Anjali Vaishnav V. The Commissioner, KVC and others, 6/2009, SwamysnewS 76, (Bombay). The learned counsel for the Applicants also relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.885/1993 dated 26.07.1994 in the case of Director Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod & others Vs. M.Purushothaman and others, AIR 1994 SC 2541. In the said case the Honble Supreme Court had observed as under:-
11. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-organization pointed out a letter dated 13-8-1986 addressed by the Under Secretary of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research to the appellant wherein it is stated that the matter was examined and it was held that the HRA should be denied to the employee who refuses to take the allotment made or when offered to him till such time the quarter in question lies vacant for want of any other taker. This would mean that the HRA would be denied to the employee only for the period the quarter lies vacant consequent upon his refusal. While, therefore, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, we direct the appellant-organization to deduct the HRA from the salary of the respondent-employees only for the period the quarters which were offered to the employees remained vacant. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
The learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that since the quarters vacated by the Applicants were allotted to other employees (except in the case of Applicant No.1, as the quarter was declared condemned), the Applicants could not be denied HRA.
16. The Respondents have resisted the claim of the Applicants by filing a Reply-statement and Additional Reply-statement as well as Written Submissions.
17. The Respondents have submitted that employees are entitled for HRA on production of No Accommodation Certificate (for short NAC) from the jurisdictional Estate Officer/ competent authority. According to the Respondents a good number of quarters in different types were laying vacant in the OFK Estate. The Audit had taken an objection that the HRA was paid to the employees, while a large number of quarters were lying vacant. The Respondents have stated that the applications for HRA are being considered from time to time keeping in view the number of quarters vacant in the OFK and looking to the seniority of the employees. The Respondents have also submitted that earlier circular dated 09.04.2003 has been withdrawn vide OFBs letter dated 06.06.2008. The Respondents have submitted that as per Central Civil Services General Rules (FRSR, Part-V) HRA shall be entitled only on production of NAC as stated above. The Applicants, in question, surrendered their respective quarters after which they preferred representations praying for the HRA. When the representations for the HRA preferred by the Applicants were considered, none of those quarters, which were allotted to the Applicants, were declared condemned. In fact, all the quarters were in a habitable condition and were re-allotted to other employees after the Applicants vacated them. In absence of NAC, the HRA could not be granted to the Applicants. The Applicants had been advised to submit applications for allotment of quarters as sufficient number of quarters were lying vacant. But, instead of applying for allotment of quarters, the Applicants are demanding HRA, which is not acceptable being contrary to rules. The Respondents have filed relevant portion of Swamys compilation of HRA & CCA - FR SR Part-V marked as Annexure R-2.
18. The Respondents have also submitted that the allegation of the Applicants that they were discriminated is not correct. The employees who are getting the HRA had obtained the NAC. It is submitted that after issue of NAC, a seniority list was prepared on the basis of entitlement date of eligibility and as per the Factory Order No.600 dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure R-3) only 40 senior most out of 175 Type-II entitled employees were granted HRA and issued NAC. Remaining employees are in queue. Similarly as per Factory Order No.599 dated 27.10.2008 (Annexure R-4) only 15 senior most Type III and Type IV entitled employees were granted HRA. As per OFBs instructions dated 09.04.2003 it has been intimated to all the concerned General Managers that HRA to such employees, who vacate their quarters and build their own house by obtaining loans from the government or other government sponsored agencies, be released if otherwise found eligible. For clear instructions the matter was forwarded to the OFB for clarification. The OFB instructed vide its letter No.263/A/A dated 10.08.2007 that on review it has been decided that the instructions contained in the circular dated 09.04.2003 shall be kept in abeyance, with immediate effect and waiting for clear instructions from the Ministry of Defence in this matter.
19. The Respondents, in reply to submission made by the Applicants in Para 5.8 of the OA, have stated that HRA has been granted to some employees on the basis of NAC/seniority of entitlement date. Since the Applicants are junior to the persons who have been granted HRA, they were not granted HRA.
20. The Respondents have also submitted that letter No.961/PIO/A/RTI dated 16th November, 2009(Annexure A-14), received from Respondent No.2 under the RTI Act has no relevance, with the claim of the present Applicants, as the HRA differs from place to place on the basis of availability of government accommodation built for the purpose of Government employees. As far as the OFK is concerned, sufficient numbers of quarters in different types are available for allotment and, therefore, the question of issuing NAC does not arise.
21. In the written submissions, it has been submitted by the Respondents that the house rent allowance, as the word denotes would mean an allowance to compensate for the expenses incurred by a Government servant on account of payment of rent. According to the Respondents, the HRA is a compensatory allowance not forming part of the pay or salary, which is given to the Government servant, to compensate or reimburse his expenditure on account of house rent. The Respondents have submitted that Para 4 of Swamys compilation on HRA & CCA (FR SR Part-V) quotes the conditions for grant of HRA and as per Para 4 the grant of HRA can be considered only after the NAC is issued to the Government employee. The Respondents have submitted that no doubt Para 7(i) of Swamys compilation on HRA & CCA (FR SR Part-V) stipulates granting of HRA to a Government servant who resides in his own house, but the combined reading of Para 4 and Para 7 (ibid) would highlight the position that Government servant would be entitled to payment of HRA subject to Para 4, which makes the NAC mandatory in stations where accommodation is available. The reason for Para 7 is to provide for HRA to Government servants at stations where adequate Government accommodation is not available. The Respondents have also submitted that the claim of the Applicants for grant of HRA from the date of vacation of their quarters thereby making their case covered under circular dated 0904.2003 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
22. The Respondents have submitted that the argument of the Applicants that other similarly placed employees in other factories were being granted HRA has no meaning because conditions differ from place to place. The position with regard to availability of number of quarters as on 09.12.2005 when the Applicant No.1 surrendered his quarter is as under:-
(i) 552 No. of Type I quarters lying vacant eligibility less than Rs.3050/-
(ii) 197 No. of Type II quarters were vacant.
Eligibility less than Rs.5500/- , but not less than Rs.3050/-
(iii) 04 No. of Type III quarters were vacant eligibility less than Rs.8500/-, but not less than Rs.5500/-
(iv) 02 No. of Type III (sic Type-IV) Quarters were vacant eligibility less than Rs.12000/-, but not less than Rs.8500/- The Applicants were entitled to Type-II quarters and 197 such quarters were vacant on 09.12.2005.
23. The Respondents have further submitted that confusion with regard to the fact that whether an employee who vacates the quarter allotted to him after construction of his own house will be entitled to HRA has been set at naught vide instruction no.3273/A/A dated 24.11.2010 (Annexure D/A filed with the MA No.1007/2010 for bringing additional documents on record). The circular in question reads as under:-
MOD in turn after due consultation has since intimated that HRA would be admissible only in the event of an employee not being able to secure Govt. Accommodation and HRA cannot be paid when Govt. Accommodation was available but the employee voluntarily surrendered it.
24. The Respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Director Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod & others Vs. M.Purushothaman and others, AIR 1994 SC 2541 = 1995 Supp (4) SCC 633. The Respondents have quoted from the judgment the following portion, which are reproduced hereunder:-
It is for this reason again that Paragraph 4(b)(i) provides that the HRA shall not be admissible to those who occupy accommodation provided for them as well as to those to whom accommodation has been offered but who have refused to accept it. The provisions of Paragraph 4(b)(i) are independent of the provisions of paragraph 4(a)(i) and (ii). Whereas paragraph 4(a)(i) and (ii) speak of procedure to be followed by the employees who are in need of accommodation , Para 4(b)(i) provides for the forfeiture of HRA even when the accommodation has been offered on its own by the management whether the application for the same has been made or not. There is no distinction made in this provision between those who have applied and those who have not applied for accommodation. Even otherwise we are of the view that the distinction sought to be made by the Tribunal is one on the face of it, irrational, particularly taking into consideration the resources spent on constructing the quarters. (Para 6) xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx The HRA would be covered by the definition of compensatory allowance. It is compensation in lieu of accommodations. This definition itself further makes it clear that compensatory allowance is not to be used as a source of profit. It is given only to compensate for the amenities which are not available or provided to the employee. The moment, therefore, the amenities are provided or offered, the employee should cease to be in receipt of the compensation which is given for want of it. We wish the Tribunal had perused the definition of pay and compensatory allowance given in the Fundamental Rules before pronouncing that the HRA is a part of the wages or pay and, therefore, cannot be disturbed. (Para 9)
25. The Respondents have also relied upon the order of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.188/2010 in which it has been held that when adequate accommodation is available we do not see non-payment of House Rent Allowance as discriminatory.
26. The Respondents have further submitted that the Government as a model employer has created a number of departmental pool accommodation to provide suitable accommodation to the Government employees to increase their productivity. In this process the Government incurs substantial capital expenditure out of public funds. Stretching the HRA scheme to such an extant wherein granting HRA to employees for residing in their houses owned by them where sufficient number of habitable government accommodation is available would defeat the very objective of the scheme as the scheme is for compensating the employee for expenses incurred on account of house rent and not to refinance the expenses incurred by him on constructing his own house. The Respondents on the basis of above arguments have submitted that the OA deserved to be dismissed.
27. We have carefully considered the arguments on both sides and have gone through the materials available on record.
28. In the present case the claim of the Applicants for grant of HRA is largely based on the circular of the OFB dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4) which lays down as under:-
5. In view of the above, it is requested that HRA to such employees who vacate factory quarters after constructing their own house obtaining loans/HBA from the Govt. or from outside Govt. sponsored agencies, be released if otherwise found eligible.
29. The Applicants, in question, had vacated the Government accommodation given to them after the issue of this circular, but before the issue of the circular dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure R-6). Therefore, it is manifest that the Applicants could not be denied the benefit of the circular dated 09.04.2003 (Annexure A-4). The Respondents can not argue that later on the said circular was kept in abeyance by instructions dated 10.08.2007. The employees acting on the said circular had taken loans from financial institutions and had constructed their houses and had also vacated the Government accommodation allotted to them. Subsequent instructions issued by the Respondents could not affect the Applicants in question who acted on the basis of instructions dated 09.04.2003. It is well settled that if a person takes up a certain position on the basis of assurance given by the other side, the other side can not turn round and say that the earlier stipulation is withdrawn. The nature of relationship between employer and employee is also a relationship of trust and as a model employer the Respondents could not deny the rightful claim of the Applicants, which according to them, was as per their own instructions dated 09.04.2003. In view of this, we hold that in the first place the cases of the Applicants have to be considered on the basis of the instruction dated 09.04.2003.
30. Now the only thing which remains to be considered is to see whether the Applicants in question were not eligible because of some other reasons. We have gone through the Reply-statement, Additional Reply-statement as well as the Written Arguments of the Respondents, but we have not been able to find out any reason, which shows that the Applicants, in question, were ineligible for any reason. The only argument advanced by the Respondents is that the Applicants could not obtain NAC. Since the Applicants had themselves vacated the Government quarters on the basis of the circular issued by the Respondents, it is absurd to insist production of the NAC on the part of the Applicants in question. The Respondents have thus not been able to prove that the Applicants were in any way ineligible for grant of the HRA as per the circular dated 09.04.2003. Accordingly, we hold that the Applicants were clearly entitled for the HRA with effect from the date they had vacated the Government quarters allotted to them. The Respondents have stated that the claim of the Applicants on the basis of circular dated 09.04.2003 is hit by laches and delay. We do not accept this argument of the Respondents for the simple reason that the Applicants could approach the Tribunal only after rejection of their cases. In fact, the representations of the Applicants, after their earlier representations were rejected, are still pending with the Respondents. That apart, there is no question of delay in the matter of financial payments, which are of recurring nature. Besides, the claim for the HRA is not something for which the Applicants should enter into litigation. It is something which the Respondents should have themselves considered as per their own circulars and should have decided the same. In view of this, we see no reason to accept the argument of the Respondents that the claim of the Applicants is in any way barred by delay or laches.
31. In the present case, it is unnecessary to consider the general conditions of grant of HRA or various case law cited by the parties. The reason for this is that the case of the Applicants for grant of HRA is squarely covered by the circular of the Respondent No.2 dated 09.04.2003 and, therefore, we do not propose to enter into the discussion on the general conditions of grant of HRA or the nature of HRA itself.
32. We also note that the Applicants have clearly alleged in the OA that one Shri Kishan Singh, whose name appears at serial no.16 in the Factory Order No.600 dated 27.10.2008 had also vacated the Government quarter and had shifted to his own house and had been grated HRA. The contention of the Applicants is that Kishan Singhs case was exactly similar to the case of the present Applicants. Despite this allegation, the Respondents have chosen not to reply on this matter. They have only submitted that the HRA has been granted considering the availability of quarters and the seniority of the employees. The logic behind such argument is not clear. In the ordinary course Government accommodation is allotted on the basis of seniority and if Government accommodation is not available, HRA is granted to the junior employees. The stand of the Respondents in the present case is absolutely vague and in any case, if the Respondents are granting HRA on the basis of seniority, it is totally absurd.
33. We, therefore, hold that the Applicants shall be entitled to grant of HRA from the dates they vacated the Government quarters and shifted to their own houses. The Applicants shall also be entitled to arrears of HRA till date. Thus, reliefs Nos.8(i) and 8(ii) are allowed. As regards Relief No.8(iii) we do not consider it necessary to grant any interest with regard to arrears of HRA. As regards relief no.8(iv), the Applicants shall be entitled to the cost of this OA (which had to be filed by the Applicants unnecessarily). The cost is quantified at Rs.500/-(Rs.Five hundred only) for each of the Applicants payable by the Respondents. It is unnecessary to pronounce any order in respect of relief no.8(v).
34. In short, the Respondents are directed to pay HRA to the Applicants in question from the dates the Applicants had vacated their Government quarter and had shifted to their own houses. Above payment along with cost of the litigation of Rs.500/- shall be made by the Respondents to each of the Applicants within 60 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the Respondents shall pay interest @ 9 (nine) per cent per annum on the amount due to the Applicants from the expiry of the said period of 60 days to the date of actual payment.
35. The OA is thus allowed to the extent indicated above.
36. Send copies of this order to the Applicants and the Respondents by Registered Post and free copies of this order be also supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(Hriday Narain) (Manoranjan Mohanty) Administrative Member Vice Chairman rkv