Jharkhand High Court
Rina Sah vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited Through ... on 14 September, 2018
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 4757 of 2009
...
1.Rina Sah
2.Sumegha Baroi
3.Snehal
4.Sarvesh ..... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1.M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited through it's Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad.
2.Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
3.General Manager (Administration), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
4.Personal Manager (DC), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad.
5.Chief of Medical Services, Bharat Coking Coke Limited, Central Hospital, Dhanbad.
6.Personal Manager (Administration), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Central Hospital, Dhanbad. ...Respondents ...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent-BCCL : - M/s. Anoop Kumar Mehta and Soumya Pandey, Advocates.
...
22/14.09.2018 Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel assisted by Ms.Soumya Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents- BCCL.
2. In the captioned writ application, the original petitioner has sought for direction upon the respondents for grant of House Rent Allowances from December, 2007 to October, 2008, at the applicable rates (25 per cent of the basic salary + Non Practice Allowance with interest) and further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2008, issued by the respondent no. 6, whereby the petitioner has been sanctioned with the House Rent Allowance only from November, 2008.
3. During pendency of the writ application, due to death of the original petitioner, the legal heirs have been substituted in place of the deceased-petitioner, since the right to sue survived vide order dated 04.07.2018.
4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been delineated in the writ application is that the petitioner joined services in the 2 Respondent-Company i.e. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 01.07.1981 and in the year 1986, the petitioner was posted in the Central Hospital of the Respondent-Company and the Company accommodation was given since 1987. After purchase of flat in the vicinity of the Company, the petitioner vacated the official accommodation i.e. Quarters No. V/3 in November, 2007 and handed over the charge of the said quarters and after vacation of the quarters, new allottee was allowed to take possession of the said quarters. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the House Rent Allowances on 03.12.2007 in a prescribed format. Since the delay was caused, the petitioner preferred a representation on 19.09.2008 for expediting the matter for sanctioning of the House Rent Allowance. The application of the petitioner was kept pending for a pretty long period and vide order dated 21.11.2008 vide Annexure-8, the respondents sanctioned the House Rent Allowance in favour of the petitioner only with effect from November, 2008, which is impugned in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-8, the petitioner submitted representations, which failed to evoke any response from the respondents. Finding no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that since the petitioner vacated the quarters in the month of November, 2007 after due intimation to the competent authorities and after filing of necessary application for grant of House Rent Allowance, the respondents ought to have granted House Rent Allowance from December, 2007, instead of October, 2008. Learned counsel further submits that there is no rationale on the part of the respondents to deny the house rent allowance for the period from December, 2007 to October, 2008, since the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of House Rent Allowance accrued from the date of surrender of the Company accommodation. Learned counsel further submits that the administrative lapses on the part of the respondents could not have led to denial of House Rent Allowance from December, 2007 to October, 2008, which 3 amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that Rule 3.1 of the House Rent Allowance Rules, 1972, as framed by the Coal India Limited provides as under :-
"An employee, who refuses or surrenders accommodation offered to him by the company shall not be eligible for House Rent Allowance". In the instant case, the petitioner has surrendered the Company's quarter and, therefore, he is not entitled to House Rent Allowance."
It has further been stated that the petitioner vacated the company's quarter in the month of November, 2007 and shifted in his own house. He applied for payment of HRA in the month of December, 2007 and sanction of the Competent Authority has been granted for allowing House Rent Allowance to the petitioner on and from October, 2008 and therefore, for the reasons stated, the petitioner is not entitled to House Rent Allowance for the period between December, 2007 to October, 2008. Further, it has been stated that the petitioner's request was processed and the competent authority took a decision for making payment of the House Rent Allowance with effect from November, 2008 and the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim House Rent Allowance in view of the provisions, contained in Clause 3.1 of the HRA Rules.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Company apartfrom defending the impugned order, vide Annexure-8 to the writ application, has referred to the various provisions of the House Rent Allowance Rules, namely, Rule 2, Rule 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent- Company has submitted that various proposals for claims of House Rent Allowances have been sent to the competent authority for approval and the Director (Personnel) has considered the individual proposals. Accordingly, the House Rent Allowances have been granted to the petitioner from November, 2008, as such, the grant or refusal of the House Rent Allowances vests with the exclusive domain of the 4 Respondents-Company, because, as per the Rules, an employee after surrendering the Company Accommodation, does not have any vested right to claim for House Rent Allowance.
8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and on perusal of the records, the short point, which remains to be determined, as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to the House Rent Allowances from December, 2007 to October, 2008.
9. Indisputably, the petitioner has vacated the Company accommodation in the month of November, 2007 and appropriate application has been made by the petitioner in the prescribed format for grant of House Rent Allowance, but, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Respondents have granted the House Rent Allowances from November, 2008 without disclosing any valid, cogent and plausible reasons. If the petitioner is entitled for House Rent Allowance from November, 2008, why he would not have entitled from December, 2007 after surrendering his accommodation to the Company and therefore impugned order being bereft of any reason is assailable to be set at naught.
10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, being not supported by any valid, cogent and plausible reasons. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure-8), passed by the respondent no. 6, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents and more particularly respondent no. 2, Director (Personnel), Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad to consider the case of the petitioner afresh as per the relevant Rules and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order.
11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) APK