Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Debi Prasad Mohanty vs D/O Post on 18 November, 2022
1 OA 260/00445 of 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
OA 260/00445 of 2020
Reserved on : 02.11.2022 Pronounced on : 18.11.2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Judicial Member
Debi Prasad Mohanty, aged about 50 years, S/o
Late Ramesh Chandra Mohanty, resident of AT-
Nuasahi, Plot No.-104, Bhubaneswar, PO -
Rasulgarh, PS- Mancheswar, Dist- Khordha,
Odisha, PIN-751010, presently working as Postal
Assistant, Jagatsinghpur HO, Jagatsinghpur, PIN-
754103. (Gr. 'C')
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi,
PIN - 110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Odisha Circle,
At/P.O.- Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda, PIN -
751001.
3. Director of Postal Services (Hqrs), O/o - CPMG,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar - 751001.
4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South
Division, Cuttack, PIN - 753001.
........Respondents.
For the applicant : Mr. C.P.Sahani, Counsel
2 OA 260/00445 of 2020
For the respondents : Mr. G.R.Verma, Counsel
O R D E R
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member(J):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the letter dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-A/9) being arbitrary and illegal and further to direct the respondents to grant him admissible HRA in lieu of post quarters for the period of his incumbency as SPM, Biridi Road SO from 01.10.2016 to 16.08.2019.
2. The case of the applicant in short compass is that, on his transfer, he joined as SPM, Biridi Road SO on 30.09.2016 where he was provided with post attached quarter. The applicant did not occupy the said quarter being not inhabitable and, after submitting a detailed report to Respondent No.4 on 13.10.2016 (Annexure-A/1), he subsequently requested for grant of HRA vide representation dated 11.11.2016 (Annexure-A/2). As the said quarters was taken on rent by the department, they requested the owner on 20.02.2017 (Annexure-A/3) to repair the same. While the matter stood thus, the ASPOs Jagatsinghpur Sub Division inspected the said quarters on 29.06.2017 and reported it as not suitable to live (Annexure-A/5). Although, the applicant kept representing for grant of HRA, he was not paid the same and, in the 3 OA 260/00445 of 2020 meantime, on 16.08.2019, he was transferred from Biridi Road SO to Jagatsinghpur HO. His appeal dated 03.10.2019 has been disposed of vide impugned order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure-A/9). Hence, he has approached this Tribunal in the present O.A.
3. Respondents have filed counter stating inter alia that Biridi Road SO is functioning in a rented building with attached post quarters since 1987. The applicant joined the post of SPM, Biridi Road SO on 30.09.2016 and continued till 16.08.2019. As per Rule-37 of Postal Manual, Vol.VI, Part I (Annexure-R/1), free quarters are allowed to Postmasters and such other establishment as it may be necessary for proper discharge of work of a post office to have residence on the premises and as per Rule 4 of HRA & CCA (Annexure-R/2), those occupying or refusing government accommodations are not eligible for HRA. On change of incumbency, a successor becomes allottee and, as per Rule 317-B 12 (1) [Annexure- R/3], HRA is not admissible if the allotted quarters is not taken into possession within the stipulated period. Further, as per Directorate letter dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure-R/4), the quarters, which are within the premises/building of the post office, need only be declared as post attached quarters, which the PMs/SPMs are bound to occupy. The applicant submitted representation on 13.10.2016, i.e. after 13 days of his 4 OA 260/00445 of 2020 joining, to inform that he could not occupy the post quarter being dilapidated, unhygienic and not in habitable condition. Hence, as per Rule Rule 4 of HRA & CCA (Annexure-R/2), the applicant is not eligible for HRA. However, on receipt of his representations, the house owner was requested vide letter dated 20.02.2017 (Annexure-A/3) and, thereafter vide letter dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure-A/6) to make necessary repair of the post quarter with endorsement of the said letter to SPM, Biridi Road SO, to meet the house owner and get the work done under intimation to respondent No.3 but no such intimation was received from applicant. Had the applicant brought the matter to the notice of the house owner as per Annexure-A/3 and A/6, the minor deficiency/problem could have been sorted out. So far as report of inspection is concerned, it is submitted that the officer submitting report had not visited the house, in question, and has only mentioned that, as told by the applicant, the quarter was not suitable for which the applicant was not residing in post quarter. They have further contended that after the applicant's transfer, his successor, viz. Sri Maximus Lakra, is presumed to be residing in the post attached quarter, in question, has not made any objection/allegation through representation regarding unsuitability of the said post quarter and, hence, the quarter is habitable and the claim of the applicant is an 5 OA 260/00445 of 2020 afterthought to get the HRA. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of this O.A.
4. Applicant has filed rejoinder contesting the objections raised by the respondents in their counter. It is submitted that As per Rule 37 of Postal Manual Vol VI, Part-I, Rule 4 of HRA & CCA, Rule 37-B 12(1) of FRSR and Directorate letter dated 10.05.2012 are applicable where the quarters are in habitable condition. These rules/provisions do not and cannot force anyone to live in an unhygienic and uninhabitable condition. He had immediately informed the authorities about the unhygienic and uninhabitable condition of the quarters, in question, which also gains support from the verification report of ASPO, Jagatsinghpur Sub-division dated 29.06.2017. Applicant has also submitted that the floor area of the post attached quarters, in question, was only 250 sq. ft. He has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame, (1990) 1 SCC 520, and Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549, where it has been held that the right to life includes the necessary infrastructure to live with human dignity. He has further relied on the various decisions of this Tribunal, [Niranjan Nayak Vs. UOI & Ors. (OA 245/2010 disposed of on 03.01.2010), Nilambar Bagh Vs. UOI (OA No. 357 of 2015 dispose of on 6 OA 260/00445 of 2020 13.01.2017) etc.] to claim that the authorities should look into the plight to be faced by the applicant had he occupied the post quarters and merely because the predecessor was and successor is residing in the quarter cannot be a ground to deny the applicant his legitimate right to get the HRA in lieu of the accommodation. Hence, he has prayed for the relief as claimed in this O.A.
5. In course of hearing, learned counsel for both sides by highlighting the key points taken in the pleadings have prayed for the reliefs claimed by them. After giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, perused the pleadings of the parties.
6. It is no doubt but true that the SPM was supposed to stay in the quarters attached to the post office but that can be compelled or insisted upon, if the quarters, in question, is habitable for human stay. So far as grant of HRA is concerned, it is, no doubt, in lieu of government accommodation and if an employee is occupying government accommodation, he shall not be entitled to grant of HRA. Here, in this case, respondents have tried to justify that the government quarter was habitable and hence the applicant was not to the HRA and, as soon as, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the quarters, in question, needed some repairing, they had written letter to the owner of the 7 OA 260/00445 of 2020 building to take action. However, after going through the pleadings, we find much force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the quarter was not in a habitable condition more so when immediately after his joining he had informed the said fact to the authorities and the verification report of ASPO, Jagatsinghpur Sub-division dated 29.06.2017 also supports the same. The authorities had also asked the building owner to take up the repair work but the fact remains that the quarter was never repaired. Hence, in such circumstances, the applicant could not have been forced to reside in that quarters as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shantistar Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Chameli Singh Vs State of U.P. (supra) that the right to life includes the necessary infrastructure to live with human dignity and as per the decisions of this Tribunal, Niranjan Nayak Vs. UOI & Ors. and Nilambar Bagh Vs. UOI (supra).
7. In view of the discussions made above, this Tribunal is of the considered view that injustice has been caused to the applicant in the decision making process. Hence, the respondents are directed to grant the applicant HRA in lieu of the government accommodation as due and admissible to him for the period in question, i.e. from 01.10.2016 to 8 OA 260/00445 of 2020 16.08.2019, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. In the result, the impugned order dated 30.12.2019 (Annexure- A/9) is quashed. O.A. is allowed to the extent stated above. Parties to bear their own costs.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK/PS