Union Of India & Others vs Om Prakash Sharma & Ors on 17 May, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Union Of India & Others vs Om Prakash Sharma & Ors on 17 May, 2011

Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee

                                              1


                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Present   :

The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Banerjee
                   -And-
The Hon'ble Justice Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri

                                  W.P.C.T. 111 of 2011
                                    Union of India & Others.
                                            -Versus-
                                   Om Prakash Sharma & Ors.

For Petitioner               :      Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee

For Respondent               :-     Mr. P.C. Das

Ms. Sanghamitra Das Judgment on :- May 17, 2011 Short question involved in this writ petition is whether the respondents would be entitled to house rent allowance when 'No Accommodation" Certificates are not produced.

The learned Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to such benefit and the petitioner herein were not entitled to force them to stay in the Government accommodation considering the facts and circumstances of this case. Being aggrieved, the Union of India has come up with this application.

Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn our attention to the Apex Court decision in the case of Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod, and Ors. Vs. M. Purushothaman and Ors. reported in AIR 1994 SC 2541. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the respondents were not entitled to house rent allowance when Government accommodations were available.

Opposing the application, Mr. P.C. Das, learned Counsel for the respondents, contends that it is not a case where the respondents refused to stay in the Government accommodation. The respondents were enjoying Government accommodation after being allotted to them. During their stay at the Government accommodation they applied for loan both to the petitioners, being the employer, as well as to the Bank and ultimately arranged their own accommodation. They received financial assistance from the Union of India and/or the Financial Institutions. After arranging their own accommodation they left the Government accommodation and thus were entitled to house rent allowance, which the petitioners denied.

We have considered the rival contentions. We have considered the decision cited at the bar. The Apex Court considered a case where accommodations were offered to the Government employees, who, on one pretext or the other, refused to occupy such accomodations, resulting the accommodations being kept vacant. In the instant case, the respondents did not have accommodation of their own. They applied for Government accommodation, which was given to them. They occupied and enjoyed the same so long they could not arrange accommodation of their own. The Union of India themselves granted assistance to some of the respondents whereas others obtained financial assistance from Financial Institutions and arranged accommodation of their own and then left the Government accommodation. It is not the case of the petitioners that the accommodations are still vacant, in view of the respondents vacating those accommodations. Hence, we do not see any reason as to why they should be deprived of house rent allowance when their colleagues are enjoying accommodation of their own and getting such financial assistance. The 3 Tribunal approached the problem in a right direction, which does not deserve any interference by this Court.

W.P.C.T. 111 of 2011 fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.

Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.

( Banerjee, J.) ( Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J.) akb.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)