Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Mudgil vs Secretary Union Of India on 7 September, 2012
1
W.P. No. 13596/2009
7.9.2012
Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.
Heard.
Order dated 27.8.2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur is being assailed vide this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By impugned order passed in Original Application No. 461/2008; whereby, petitioner sought direction to the respondents to pay house rent allowance w.e.f 18.6.2004 to 28.2.2005 as arrears, interest @ 18 % per annum and cost was negatived.
Relevant facts briefly are that the petitioner, a Junior Telecom Officer in the establishment of Quality Assurance, was transferred in July 2000 from the office of Senior Quality Assurance Officer, SQAE (L) to Controllerate of Quality Assurance (AVL), Avadi, where the House Rent Allowance was granted to him up to 16.2.2004. That, in pursuance to Estate Order No. 18 dated 20th March 2003 issued by Heavy Vehicle Factory (Avadi) Chennai (Yard and Estate Section)) inviting application from officers/employees drawing pay in pay range 850011999 and noneligible candidates (who are eligible for next lower type of quarters) for four Type IV quarters, the 2 petitioner though belonging to different unit applied for the allotment of quarter. The application was turned down on 4.7.2003 holding that, only the officers/employees of Heavy Vehicle Factory and Engine Factory, Avadi, are entitled implying thereby that, officers/employees of CQA, are not entitled for allotment of quarters allocated to HVA pool; subsequently, however, the said decision was reviewed on 10th January 2004 and the petitioner was allotted Type IV Quarter no. 49/4 with effect from 19.1.2004. Subsequent thereafter on audit objection the allotment order was proposed to be withdrawn by order dated 27.3.2004 with a request to the Controller, CQA (AVL) Avadi to facilitate the petitioner quarter of DGQA Pool with a further request to get the HVF Quarter No. 49/4 vacated. The aforesaid correspondence led to cancellation of allotment order by order dated 5.4.2004 as the petitioner was found not eligible for allotment of Type IV quarter which was in Heavy Vehicle Factory Avadi's pool.
The petitioner in pursuance to the said cancellation approached the Controller, Quality Assurance, Avadi for allotment of Type IV quarter from DGQA Pool. In pursuance thereto the petitioner by letter dated 22.4.2004 was informed that the petitioner being in the basic pay of 7900 is entitled to only Type III quarter. Accordingly it was informed that the allotment of Type III quarter will be considered if he is willing 3 to accept the same. Petitioner insisted for allotment of Type IV quarter as is evident from his representation dated 27.6.2005 and in case of nonallotment, claimed house rent allowance from 18.6.2004 to 28.2.2005. The claim for house rent allowance was also routed through Administrative Officer, Controllarate of Quality Assurance, Avadi. Claim of the petitioner since did not fructify he filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur as in the meantime the petitioner was transferred back to Jabalpur.
Before the Tribunal respondents putforth that the Estate Order, on the basis whereof the petitioner had applied for allotment of Type IV quarter, was by Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi and was applicable only in respect of officers/employees of Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi and Engine Factory, Avadi. The said Estate order was not applicable to officers/employees of Controller, Quality Assurance Avadi. It is urged that since the petitioner was an employee of CQA was thus not entitled for allotment of Type IV quarter which was of Heavy Vehicle Factory pool. In respect of his entitlement, it is contended that, being in the basic pay of Rs.7900 and not in the pay range of 850011999, the petitioner was entitled for Type III quarters and not Type IV. It is further contended that an option was given to the petitioner for allotment of Type III quarters by 4 communication dated 22.4.2004. The petitioner, however, did not accept the same but insisted upon for allotment of type IV quarters. It is urged that since the quarters as per entitlement of the petitioner were available and offered to him and he declined to accept the same, he was not found eligible for grant of house rent allowance as claimed by him for the period 18.6.2004 to 28.2.2005.
The Tribunal after taking into consideration the rival contentions negatived the claim holding:
"11. The facts noticed herein above would show that the applicant laid claim for HRA only after the judgment has been rendered by Madras Bench on 27/3/2008 in R.N. Ghosh (supra). Hon'ble Supreme Court in Directors Central Plantations Crops Research Institute and others vs. M. Purushothaman and others 1994 SCC (L&S) 1418 has held that HRA can not be claimed as matter of right & it is paid in lieu of accommodation not made available to the employees. This being the case, it follows that whenever the accommodation is offered, the employees have either to accept it or forfeit HRA. The management cannot be saddled with double liability, viz., to construct and maintain the quarters as well as to pay the HRA.
12. The law laid down in the judgment noticed herein above squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. Admittedly, there had been Type III quarters available with DGQA and he was required to apply for same but he chose not to apply rather he insisted to allow a Type IV quarter only despite his nonentitlement. ...... ....... ......"5
The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Estate Order No. 18 was issued by Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi for allotment of Type IV quarters to its officers/employees and that of officers/employees of Engine Factory, Avadi. It is also not disputed that being in the pay range of Rs.7900 the petitioner is entitled for Type III quarter. It is further submitted that having allotted the quarter vide letter dated 10th January 2004 by relaxing the condition the respondents were not justified in retracting the same under the garb of audit objection. It is further contended that having forced to vacate Type IV quarter, incumbent it was upon the management of Controller, Quality Assurance, Avadi to have allotted Type IV quarter irrespective of the fact that he was not entitled for the same.
We are not impressed with the submissions putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner. Record reveals that various types of quarters are pooled to respective establishments. In the case at hand admittedly four type IV quarters which have fallen vacant in Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi's pool were to be allotted to the officers/employees of the same factory and that of Engine Factory, Avadi and not for the officers/employees of other establishment. Therefore, while cancelling the allotment which was erroneously made in favour of petitioner, the Controller, Quality Assurance, Avadi where the petitioner was 6 employed were requested to consider for allotment of quarter in their pool. The CQA did offer the petitioner for allotment of Type III quarter which the petitioner was entitled for the same was, however, not acceded to by the petitioner on the pretext that they are too small to accommodate his family.
In view whereof no right accrues in favour of petitioner for grant of house rent allowance for the period from 18.6.2004 to 28.2.2005 as despite of availability of quarter as per his entitlement the petitioner had refused to accept the same.
In the result since there is no error in the judgment rendered by the Tribunal we declined to interfere with the same. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(AJIT SINGH ) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
VT