Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Akhilesh Prasad vs Union Of India on 15 March, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5647 of 2013
Dr. Akhilesh Prasad, Son of Sri Narayani Singh, resident of 502,
Nirmala Kunj, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S. Saraidhela,
District- Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, through Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, P.O. Goal
Market, P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, through Chairman, Sarvpriya
Vihar, Hauzkhas P.O. & P.S. Hauzkhas, New Delhi 110016.
3. The Chairman, Sarvpriya Vihar, Hauzkhas P.O. & P.S. Hauzkhas,
New Delhi 110016.
4. The Director, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, P.O. India School
Mines, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
5. The Registrar, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, through Director,
P.O. India School Mines, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
6. The Estate and Security Officer, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad,
through Director, P.O. India School Mines, P.S. Saraidhela, District
Dhanbad. ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (S) No. 5653 of 2013
Dr. Upendra Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Uday Naryan Singh, resident of
Flat no. 304, Signora City, Middle School Road, Bartand, Dhanbad.
2. Dr. Vineet Kumar Rai, Son of Sri Dhiraya Nath Rai, resident of
203, Nirmala Kunj, Jagjivan Nagar, P.O. Jagjivan Nagar, P.S.
Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad
3. Dr. Manish Kumar Jain, Son of Sri Sudhir Kumar Jain, E-7
Teachers Colony, ISM Dhanbad.
4. Dr. (Ms.) Mrinalini Pandey, Daughter of Sri G. D. Pandey, L. C.
Road, Manoram Nagar, Dhanbad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, through Ministry of Human Resource
Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, P.O. Goal
Market, P.S. Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, through Chairman, Sarvpriya
Vihar, Hauzkhas P.O & P.S. Hauzkhas, New Delhi 110016.
3. The Chairman, Sarvpriya Vihar, Hauzkhas P.O. & P.S. Hauzkhas,
New Delhi 110016.
4. The Director, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, P.O. India School
Mines, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
5. The Registrar, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, through Director,
P.O. India School Mines, P.S. Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
6. The Estate and Security Officer, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad,
through Director, P.O. India School Mines, P.S. Saraidhela, District
Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate 2 For the Respondents : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
---
10/15.03.2024 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. W.P. (S) 5647 of 2013 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"That the instant writ application has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to pay House Rent Allowance to petitioner which has been withheld since 01.01.2013 without any valid reason as the petitioner and several other persons on the rank of Associate Professor/Faculty Member were residing in their own house and there is scarcity of house for the rank of Associate Professor/Faculty Member in Indian School of Mines, although petitioner is entitled for House Rent Allowance as per Government of India Rules but the respondent authorities have stopped the House Rent Allowance of the Petitioner and subsequently took resolution in their Executive Board meeting on 08.03.2013, contrary to the Government of India Rules and forcing the petitioner and similarly situated other Associate Professor/Faculty Member to accept the house below their entitlement even though some of the house of Type-V meant for Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600/- Rs. 8,700/-, although petitioner is having Grade Pay of Rs. 9,500/- but even then the respondent authorities are pressurizing the petitioner and others to forcibly accept Type IV which is meant for Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- and as such the petitioner is entitled for House Rent Allowance as per Government of India Rules and the respondent authorities may be directed to pay House Rent Allowance as per Government of India Rules with interest and for grant of any other relief reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitle for in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. W.P. (S) No. 5753 of 2013 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"That the instant writ application has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), Direction(s) commanding upon the respondents to pay House Rent Allowance to petitioner(s) which has been withheld since 01.01.2013 without any valid reason as the petitioner(s) and several other faculty members entitled for type v accommodation were residing outside as there is scarcity of house for the faculty members entitled for type v accommodation in Indian School of Mines, although petitioner(s) are entitled for House Rent Allowance as per Government of India Rules but the respondent authorities 3 have stopped the House Rem Allowance of the Petitioner(s) and subsequently took resolution in their Executive Board meeting on 08.03.2013, contrary to the Government of India Rules and forcing the petitioner(s) and similarly situated other faculty members to accept the house below their entitlement even though some of the house of Type-V meant for Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- Rs. 8,700/- are vacant, although petitioner(s) are having Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/- Rs. 9,500/- but even then the respondent authorities are pressurizing the petitioner and others to forcibly accept Type IV which is meant for Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- and as such the petitioner(s) are entitled for House Rent Allowance as per Government of India Rules and the respondent authorities may be directed to pay House Rent Allowance as per Government of India Rules with interest and for grant of any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is legally entitle for in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners are entitled to type-V quarter in terms of the notice dated 30.03.2013 but they were offered type-IV special quarter and they refused to shift and consequently the house rent allowance was withheld since 01.01.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondents are not permitted to offer type-IV special quarter or any other quarter which is inferior to type-V quarter as per the entitlement of the petitioners. The learned counsel has also submitted that the respondents cannot compel the petitioners to apply for type-IV special quarter on the face of their entitlement of type-V quarter and accordingly they were fully justified in not shifting to type-IV special quarter and continue with their own accommodation and are entitled for house rent allowance. The petitioners have been illegally deprived of house rent allowance by virtue of impugned action and therefore the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel has submitted that withholding of house rent allowance with effect from 01.01.2013 is without assigning any reason and otherwise also the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that a number of affidavits and counter affidavits have been exchanged in the present case and the reason for refusal to give house rent allowance has already been brought on record. He has referred to the 4 reply of the respondents to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners which the respondents have filed vide affidavit dated 27.11.2015 and has referred to Annexure-I thereof to submit that it has been clearly mentioned that a meeting of the committee for looking into the matters of existing vacant house and HRA paid to the faculty members was held on 2.9.2012 and a decision was taken that officers entitled for accommodation of type-V and above shall also be eligible to apply for accommodation below their entitlement subject to the condition that such accommodation shall not be below type-IV special accommodation. Learned counsel has also referred to clause-2(a) and 2(b) of the said decision and has submitted that refusal to shift to type- IV special accommodation quarters would disentitle the petitioners to house rent allowance as 'no accommodation certificate' will not be issued to them. The learned counsel has also submitted that a large number of persons who are similarly situated as that of the petitioners and also having higher rank as compared to the petitioners have taken their accommodation under type-IV special accommodation and a list of the same has been provided in in paragraph 5 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 11.05.2015. The learned counsel submits that other persons who are similarly situated and better placed in rank than the petitioners have availed the opportunity to shift to type-IV special accommodation but the petitioners are adamant and have been insisting upon type-V quarter although they are entitled for type-V quarter as well as type-IV special accommodation.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that the decision which has been relied upon by the respondents as contained in Annexure-(I) to the affidavit dated 27.11.2015 is the decision dated 02.09.2012 and the decision which the petitioners are relying upon is contained in Annexure-3 which is dated 30th March 2013. Annexure-3 dated 30th March 2013 is a notice regarding recategorization of residential accommodation of Indian School of Mines (ISM) as per recommendation of the committee for recategorization of quarters and adopted for implementation as recommended by Deans' committee in its meeting held on 23.03.2013 and approved by the Director as per recategorization the persons who 5 are in the pay 8700 and above are entitled to type-V-B quarter. The decision as contained in Annexure-3 is subsequent to the decision dated 02.09.2012 and there is glaring difference between the two. In such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioners is required to be considered in the light of the HRA Rules and the various circulars issued by the respondents from time to time as may be applicable to the petitioners. The facts remains that the respondents have unilaterally withheld the House Rent Allowance (HRA) w.e.f. 01.01.2013 without passing any order much less any adverse order against the petitioners with regards to their entitlement.
7. In such circumstances, the matter is required to be considered by respondent no. 4 (now IIT-ISM Dhanbad). The petitioners would represent before the respondent no. 4 along with the writ records and any other applicable circular, decision, guideline etc which the petitioners may find relevant for the purposes of decision in the matter.
8. The respondent no. 4 shall pass a reasoned order after supplying a copy of the applicable rules, circulars, decisions etc which the respondents seek to rely upon to decide the entitlement of the petitioners with regards to category of quarters and entitlement of house rent allowance.
9. The reasoned order be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of the representation. If the petitioners are entitled to any amount on account of House Rent Allowance (HRA) as per the reasoned order, appropriate follow up orders be also issued within a period of one week from the date of reasoned order so that the monetary benefit out of the reasoned order is remitted to the petitioners forthwith.
10. The reasoned order be communicated to the petitioners through speed post.
11. Both the writ petitions are disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.
Binit (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)