Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Poonam Srivastava vs Kvs-Nvs on 28 August, 2024
1 OA No. /050/0332/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RANCHI CIRCUIT BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 051/0332/2021
Reserved on: 22.08. 2024
Pronounced on: 28.08.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
Smt. Poonam Srivastava, TGT (English), Kendriya Vidyalaya-Surda,
PO & PS-Ghatsila, Distt. - East Singhbhum-832 303 Jharkhand.
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
1. Union of India, Ministry of Education through its Secretary,
School Education and Literacy Department, having office at
124-C, Shastri Bhawan, P.O.-Shastri Bhawan Sub Office, P.S.
Patna Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
Bench
2. The Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (In short KVS), through
the Commissioner at 18-A, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110 016.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Regional Officer, Ranchi, PO & PS - Namkum Ranchi-834010
Jharkhand.
4. The Administrative Officer-cum-Central Public Information
Officer, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Regional Office,
Ranchi, PO & PS-Namkum, Town District Ranchi-834010.
........Respondents
For Applicant:- Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For Respondents:- Sh. Amit Sinha, Addl. CGSC for R-1.
Sh. Mukhtar Khan, Advocate for R-2 to R-4.
ORDER
PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL]
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties with consent through video conferencing mode.
PRAYER
2. By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, applicant has sought the main relief (as extracted from the OA) as under:-
2 OA No. /050/0332/2021
"1. To quash and set aside order passed by the Dy.
Commissioner, KVS Regional Office, Ranchi, dated 13.04.2021.
2. The Respondent authority may be ordered/ directed to pay the deducted and recovered amount along with statutory interest within stipulated time period.
3. A heavy amount of cost shall be awarded upon respondents for dereliction of duties, wantonly misinterpretation and ignorance of rules and misusing power and abusing their official position especially by Mr. Shashikant Sharma, the Administrative Officer-cum-PIO, KVS Regional Office, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) and dragging applicant in mental agony, harassment and put in burden of heavy financial loss in filing two Original Applications bearing No.294/2021 and present application."
Patna FACTS IN BRIEF Bench
3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by applicant in the instant OA are that applicant is working as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) and transferred at K.V. Surda in April, 2018. Applicant is staying at Dharambahal Tola Laldeeh, Ghatsila in rented house. Applicant was also drawing House Rent Allowance (HRA) @ 8% of basic pay since joining at Surda from April, 2018.
4. It is also the case of applicant as set out in the OA that respondents stopped HRA since January, 2020. Thereafter again started from March, 2020 till August, 2020 disbursement of HRA to applicant.
The private complaint was made. The respondent no.4 issued Impugned Order dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure 4-B) to stop HRA. The Disciplinary Authority also served Memorandum of Charges under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1965].3 OA No. /050/0332/2021
5. Per contra, respondents/KVS has filed written statement that applicant Smt. Poonam Srivastava wife of Shri A.K. Srivastava, Qtr.
No.5/19, Type-IV, Uranium Corporation of India Limited (In short UCIL) Colony, Jadugoda, Jharkhand filed applications under R.T.I. with address of place of government residence allotted to her husband. The applicant was sought to clarify vide letter dated 24.12.2019 that once husband of the applicant is allotted a government accommodation in UCIL Colony, Jadugoda about 13.2 kms from K.V. Surda within same station and both Surda and Jadugoda are under same Mosaboni Patna Bench block contiguous-adjoining and should not be paid HRA as per rules.
The case of the applicant was referred to KVS (HQ). Assistant Commissioner (Finance), KVS (HQ) and after reasonable opportunity to applicant vide impugned order dated 13.04.2021, clarified regarding payment of HRA to applicant. KVS (HQ) has also clarified that under Rule 5(c) (iii) of HRA Rules and Orders - husband of applicant allotted accommodation at same station by an Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi-government organization, whether he/she resides in the accommodation or resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her. So also clarified in impugned order that phrase "Same Station" for grant of HRA has been given under G.O.I. Orders (2) under Rule 5 of HRA Rules - prescribes that "same station" phrase under Rule 5(c) (iii) of this Ministry's OM dated 27.11.1965 includes all places which are treated as contiguous to the qualified city/town in terms of Para 3 (a)(i) and those dependent on qualified city/town in 4 OA No. /050/0332/2021 terms of paras 3(b)(iii) & 3(b) (iii) and also those places which are included in the Urban agglomeration of a qualified city.
6. Respondents have stated that both locations, i.e., Jadugoda and Surda are within same notified block Mosaboni in the district and hence contiguous to each other being within a distance merely 13.2 kms and applicant is not entitled to draw HRA as per rules, whether he/she resides or not. The amount paid in excess was recovered from applicant as she was not eligible to draw HRA as per rules and orders. The spouse was allotted accommodation at same station, whether applicant Patna Bench resides or not, not entitled for HRA.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by applicant denying the averments made in the W.S. and stated that internal annual audit never objected to payment of HRA. Respondents have wrongly recovered total Rs.1,58,400/- and same required to be returned. It is also stated in the rejoinder that husband of applicant allotted accommodation but not at the same station in view of O.M. dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure 2). In State of Jharkhand, only four cities come under Urban Agglomeration categorized as Y cities, no city under X category, and places will be under Z city. KV-Surda and Jadugoda are under Z category and accommodation allotted to husband will not fall under "same station". The quarter allotted to the husband of the applicant is located in Z category and hence applicant is entitled for HRA as husband not allotted accommodation at same station. So also as per Para 5(c)(iii), para 3(b)(i) and para 3(b)(ii) of HRA Rules and Orders since the 5 OA No. /050/0332/2021 husband of applicant has not been allotted quarter under X or Y category, and applicant is entitled for HRA.
SUBMISSIONS
8. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel for applicant contended and can be summarized as -
i) Husband of the applicant allotted government accommodation in UCIL (Department of Atomic Energy), Jadugoda and applicant is posted at K.V. Surda and both places Patna Bench do not fall under same station. The OM dated 21.07.2015 re-
classified cities/town for purpose of grant of HRA and Jadugoda and Surda classified as 'Z' category for purpose of HRA and applicant is entitled for HRA in view of OM dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure-2).
ii) Husband of the applicant allotted quarter at Jadugoda by UCIL not classified under X or Y category cities and KV-Surda not situated contiguous to Jadugoda.
iii) Respondents have illegally recovered Rs.1,58,400/- as HRA already paid. There is no misrepresentation or fraud on part of applicant and in light of law laid down in case of State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih [2015 (4) SCC 334] and in case of Thomas Daniel versus State of Kerala [2022 SCC Online SC 536], recovery deserves to be set aside and respondents be 6 OA No. /050/0332/2021 directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,58,400/- payable towards HRA to applicant.
iv) Respondents have issued illegal impugned order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure 4-D) and dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure A-
1) without following principles of natural justice and held applicant not entitled to draw HRA as both locations are within same block Mosaboni and contiguous to each other with distance of 13.2 kms.
Patna 9. Shri Mukhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondents Bench no.2 to 4/KVS argued and can be summarized that -
i) Husband of the applicant working as Additional Superintendent, in UCIL (Department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India), Jadugoda, government accommodation has been allotted. The applicant is posted at KV-Surda, which is under same notified area as Mosaboni block. The husband of applicant once allotted a government accommodation at the same station by PSU, Autonomous PSU or semi-government organization whether he/she resides separately in accommodated rented by him/her. As per Para 5(c) (iii) of HRA General Rules and orders, applicant is not entitled for HRA and recovery is justified as applicant suppressed the fact that her husband was allotted the government quarter.
ii) The Central Government time to time re-classified cities/town vide O.M. dated 21.07.2015, 15.07.2019 and 7 OA No. /050/0332/2021 07.07.2017 on basis of census for purpose of rate of HRA to Central Government Employees. The applicant posted at KV- Surda and husband posted at Jadugoda and allotted government accommodation. Both the places Jadugoda and Surda classified as "Z" category for purpose of HRA, as not in list of X or Y category list, hardly distance of 13.2 kms. Ministry's OM dated 27.11.1965 (Annexure -D) as per para 5(c) (iii) same station includes all places treated as contiguous/adjoining to qualified city/town in terms of para 3(a)(i), (b)(ii) and (iii) of HRA Rules, Patna Bench Jadugoda and Surda are within same block i.e. Mosaboni block in same station.
iii) Applicant working as TGT (English) at KV-Surda not entitled for HRA under Rule/para 5(c)(iii) of HRA General Rules and both places Jagugoda and Surda as per clarification under GOI Orders (2) under Rule 5 of HRA Rules - same station falls under Rule 5(c)(iii) of HRA GR and Orders.
iv) Present case relates to recovery of HRA paid to applicant, whereas not legally entitled under Rule 5(c)(iii) of HRA Rules and amount illegally paid already recovered after reasonable opportunity of hearing and clarification from KV (HQ) vide impugned orders.
v) Ratio of decision in case of State of Punjab versus Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra) are not applicable in the facts of present case. Applicant suppressed place of 8 OA No. /050/0332/2021 government accommodation allotted to her husband and on complaint and reminders after reasonable opportunity recovery was made. The factual situation is different and ratio laid down in above precedents is not attracted.
10. Shri Amit Sinha, learned Addl. CGSC, appearing for respondent no.1 adopts arguments advanced by Shri Mukhtar Khan, Advocate for KVS.
ANALYSIS Patna Bench 11. This Tribunal has bestowed anxious considerations on the rival contentions of parties and also perused the material placed on record as well as considered the precedents cited by the parties.
12. The admitted facts in case on hand that husband of the applicant is employee of UCIL (Department of Atomic Energy, G.O.I.) posted as Additional Superintendent in Uranium Corporation of India Limited (Department of Atomic Energy), Jadugoda and allotted a government accommodation [Qtr. No.5/19, Type-IV, UCIL Colony, Jadugoda, Jharkhand], which is within almost 13.2 kms. The place of posting of applicant is at KV-Surda, both Surda and Jadugoda are within same notified Mosaboni block in the district-contiguous to the named Mosaboni block, notified area as block-Mosaboni, Jharkhand.
13. The dispute in the present case that stand of the applicant that while posted at KV-Surda since April 2018 in light of O.M. dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure-2), since Jadugoda and Surda are not classified 9 OA No. /050/0332/2021 as X or Y category cities/town for HRA, both places fall under Z Category cities/towns and applicant by virtue of OM dated 21.07.2015
- re-classification/upgradation of cities for the purpose of grant of HRA entitled for HRA @ 8% of her basic pay.
THE ISSUE
14. From the above submissions of the parties and material placed on record. The short issue for consideration is -
"Whether the respondents are justified in passing the impugned Patna Bench order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure 4/D), whereby applicant held not entitled to draw HRA and vide order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure A-1) recovered the HRA amount paid?"
THE RELEVANT H.R.A. GENERAL RULES AND ORDERS
15. Relevant position of HRA Rules and Orders necessary to answer the controversy involved in the present case, for ready reference, are reproduced as under:-
A. Swamy's Compilation of FR SR Part-IV Edition 21st-
2014, Section 13 of the Compilation contains HRA-
General Rules and- Orders of the Government regarding conditions for grant of HRA.
B. The Para 3(a)(i) Area where admissible and Para 5(c)
(i), (ii) and (iii) conditions for drawal of HRA and GOI decision, M.F.OM dated 20.12.1989 "same station"10 OA No. /050/0332/2021
defined.- HRA -General Rules and orders, for ready reference are reproduced hereunder:-
I. AREAS WHERE ADMISSIBLE "Para 3(a) (i) - The limits of locality which within these orders apply shall be those of the named Municipality, or Corporation and shall include such of the suburban Municipalities, notified areas or cantonments as are contiguous to the named Municipality or Corporation or other areas as the Central Government may, from time to time, notify.
Para 3(a)(ii) - The orders contained will automatically apply/ceases to apply to areas which may be included within/excluded from the limits of the named Municipality or Corporation by the State Government concerned, from the date of such inclusion/exclusion."
Patna Bench II. CONDITIONS FOR DRAWAL OF HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE
i) "Para 5
(a) xxx
(b) xxx
(c) A Government servant shall not be entitled to House Rent Allowance, if -
(i) he shares Government accommodation allotted rent-free to another Government servant; or
(ii) he/she resides in accommodation allotted to his/her parents/son/daughter by the Central Government, State Government, an Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi-Government Organization such as Municipality, Port Trust, Nationalized Banks, Life Insurance Corporation of India, etc.
(iii) his wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi-Government Organization such as Municipality, Port Trust, etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her."
C. SAME STATION DEFINED "The phrase, "same station" occurring in Para 5(c)(iii) includes all places which are treated as contiguous to the qualified city/town in terms of Para 3(a)(i) and those dependent on the qualified city/town in terms of Para 3(b)(ii) and 3(b)(iii) and also those places which are included in the Urban Agglomeration of a qualified city.
11 OA No. /050/0332/2021[G.I. M.F., O.M. No.21011/13/89-E.II(B), dated the 20th December, 1989] [Emphasis supplied] D. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, OM dated 7th July, 2017 for ready reference reads -
"OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Implementation of recommendations of Seventh Central Pay Commission relating to grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) to Central Government employees. Consequent upon the decision taken by the Government on the recommendations of the Seventh Central Pay Commission, the President is pleased to decide that, in modification of this Ministry's O.M. No.2(37)-E.II(B)/64 Patna dated 27.11.2015 as amended from time to time, O.M. Bench No.2(13)/2008-E.II(B) dated 29.08.2008 and O.M. No.2/5/2014-E.II(B) dated 21.07.2015, the admissibility of House Rent Allowance (HRA) shall be as under:-
Classification of Rate of House Rent
Cities/Towns Allowance per month as a
percentage of Basic Pay
only
X 24%
Y 16%
Z 8%
2. The rates of HRA will not be less than Rs.5400/-, 3600/- & 1800/- at X, Y & Z class cities respectively.
3. The rates of HRA will be revised to 27%, 18% & 9% for X, Y & Z class cities respectively when Dearness Allowance (DA)crosses 25% and further revised to 30%, 20% & 10% when DA crosses 50%.
4. The term "basic pay" in the revised pay structure means the pay drawn in the prescribed pay levels in the Pay Matrix and does not include Non-Practising Allowance (NPA), Military Service Pay (MSP), etc. or any other type of pay like special pay, etc.
5. The list of cities classified as X, Y & Z vide DoE's O.M. No.2/5/2014-E.II(B) dated 21.07.2015, for the purpose of grant of House Rent Allowance is enclosed as Annexure to these orders.
6. Special orders on continuance of HRA at Delhi ("X"
class city)rates to Central Government employees posted at Faridabad, Ghaziabad, NOIDA and Gurgaon, at Jalandhar ("Y" class city) rates to Jalandhar Cantt., at "Y" class city rates to Shillong, Goa & Port Blair and HRA at par with Chandigarh ("Y" class city) to Panchkula, S.A.S. Nagar 12 OA No. /050/0332/2021 (Mohali) which have been allowed to continue vide Para '4' of this Ministry's OM No.2/5/2014-E.II(B) dated 21.07.2015 and O.M. No. 2/2/2016-E.II (B) dated 03.02.2017, shall continue till further orders.
7. All other conditions governing grant of HRA under existing orders, shall continue to apply.
8. These orders shall be effective from 1st July, 2017.
9. The orders will apply to all civilian employees of the Central Government. The orders will also be applicable to the civilian employees paid from the Defence Service Estimates. In respect of Armed Forces personnel and Railway employees, separate orders will be issued by the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Railways, respectively.
10. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller & Auditor General of India.
Patna Bench Hindi version is attached.
Sd/-
(Annie George Mathew) Joint Secretary to the Government of India. To All Ministries and Departments to the Govt. of India etc. as per standard distribution list.
Copy to: C&AG and U.P.S.C., etc. as per standard endorsement list."
16. For purpose of appreciation of issue involved, impugned orders dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-1) and dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-4/D) read as follows:-
Order dated 13.04.2021 Order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure-1) (Annexure-4D) Sub: Clarification regarding payment of Sub: Clarification regarding payment of HRA to Smt. Poonam Srivastava, TGT HRA to Smt. Poonam Srivastava, TGT (Eng.), KV-Surda. (Eng.)S.st) KV-Surda.
Sir, Reference: KV, RO Ranchi letter No.40058/KVS(RNC)/2019-20/470-72 With reference to the subject cited dated 29.09.2020. above, it is to inform you that this Office vide letter No.40058/KVS(RNC)/2019- Sir, 20/ 470-72 dated 29.09.2020 has sought clarification from KVS (HQrs.), New With reference to the above Delhi regarding payment of HRA to mentioned letter no.and the subject Smt. Poonam Srivastava, TGT (Eng.), cited above, it is clarified that the 13 OA No. /050/0332/2021 KV-Surda. instant case is covered under Rule 5(c)(iii) of HRA Rules which prescribes
2. In reply, KVS (HQrs.), New Delhi that "a Government servant shall not be vide letter No.11- entitled to House Rent Allowance: if his Aud0Misc(RNMS/1/2019/206 dated wife/her husband has been allotted 13.04.2021 (copy enclosed) has clarified accommodation at the same station by this office that, Smt. Poonam Srivastava, the Central Government, State TGT (Eng.), KV-Surda is not entitled to Government, an autonomous Public draw HRA. Undertaking or semi-Government Organization such as Municipality,
3. In view of above, it is directed to Port Trust etc. whether he/she resides inform the teacher accordingly and in that accommodation or he/she recover the HRA amount paid if any to resides separately in accommodation Smt. Poonam Srivastava since posted at KV-Surda under intimation to this rented by him/her"
office. As such the clarification of the phrase "Same Station" for grant of HRA in such a reference has been given under GoI Orders (2) under rule 5 of HRA Rules, which prescribes that "the phrase "Same Station" occurring Patna Bench in Para 5(c)(iii) of this Ministry's OM dated 27.11.1965, includes all places which are treated as contiguous to the qualified city/town in terms of para 3(a)(i) and those dependent on the qualified city/town in terms of paras 3(b)(ii) & 3(b)(iii) and also those places which are included in urban agglomeration of a qualified city."
In this case, it is observed that both of locations i.e. Jagudoda and Surda are within same block Mosaboni and hence contiguous to each other being within a distance of merely 13.2 kms. As per para 3(a)(i), referred hereinabove.
Hence, Smt. Poonam Srivastava, TGT (S.St) of KV-Surda is not entitled to draw HRA. The teacher may be informed accordingly.
(Emphasis supplied)
17. As evident from the facts in the present case on hand that on 11.06.2019, a complaint was sent against the applicant regarding illegal payment of amount of HRA. The Principal, KV-Surda, Jharkhand has also received reminder dated 12.11.2019 in pursuance to complaint dated 11.06.2019. The Administrative Officer of KVS, RO, Ranchi vide communication dated 24.12.2019 has informed to Principal, KV- 14 OA No. /050/0332/2021 Surda that husband of applicant had been allotted a government accommodation as he is working as Additional Superintendent in UCIL (Department of Atomic Energy, GOI), Jadugoda almost 13.2 kms from place of posting of applicant at KV-Surda. The Administrative Officer, KV, RO, Ranchi has also stated that station Jadugoda and Surda are under the same Mosaboni Block and applicant is not legally entitled for drawing HRA.
18. The Administrative Officer, vide communication dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure-4/B) also intimated that if applicant wants to Patna Bench represent relating to non-grant of HRA then the matter will be referred to KVS (HQrs) for further clarification and till such time no recovery shall be effected. The letter dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure 4/B) sent by Administrative Officer, KVS, RO, Ranchi also reflects that copy of the same was forwarded to the applicant. The applicant has preferred representation dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure 3-A) to the Deputy Commissioner, KVS, RO, Ranchi. The applicant has admitted the fact that her husband is working as Additional Superintendent, UCIL and a government quarter has been allotted to him but due to poor transport facility, applicant has taken rented accommodation at Dharambahal Tola Laldeeh, Ghatsila District, Jharkhand and entitled for HRA as both Surda and Jadugoda do not fall in the same station.
19. The applicant has also preferred representation dated 28.12.2020 to the Grievance Officer, KVS (HQrs.), New Delhi and stated that both stations are different and applicant has already submitted Rent 15 OA No. /050/0332/2021 Agreement along with affidavit to Principal, KVS-Surda and applicant is entitled for HRA at KVS-Surda.
20. The respondent/KVS(HQrs) had issued impugned order dated 13.04.2021 stating that under Rule 5(c)(iii) of HRA Rules prescribes that a government servant shall not be entitled to HRA if his wife/her husband has been allotted government accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi-Government Organization such as Municipality, Port Trust etc., whether he/she resides in that Patna Bench accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her. The impugned order dated 13.04.2021 further stipulates that clarification of phrase "Same Station" for grant of HRA - such a reference has been given under Govt. of India's Orders (2) under Rule 5 of HRA Rules which prescribes that phrase of "Same Station"
occurring in Para 5(c)(iii) of this Ministry's OM dated 27.11.1965, includes all places which are treated as contiguous to the qualified city/town in terms of para 3(a)(i) and those dependent on the qualified city/town in terms of paras 3(b)(ii) & 3(b)(iii) and also those places which are included in urban agglomeration of a qualified city. It is also clarified that both locations i.e. Jadugoda and Surda are within the same block of Mosaboni and hence contiguous to each other merely 13.2 kms and as per para 3(a)(i), both locations fall in same notified area Mosaboni Block within 13.2 kms and are under limits of locality and the same station. Applicant has been held to be not entitled to draw 16 OA No. /050/0332/2021 HRA and was informed accordingly. The impugned order dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure 4/D) was communicated to applicant by KVS, RO, Ranchi and accordingly the amount paid as HRA has been recovered from the applicant.
21. This Tribunal has already extracted relevant provisions relating to entitlement of HRA. The relevant para 3(a)(i), para 5(c) (i), (ii) and
(iii), Para 3(a)(i) of HRA Rules and Orders as extracted hereinabove provide for limits for locality which within these orders apply shall be those of municipality or corporation and shall also include such a Patna Bench named municipality or corporation or notified area or cantonment or other areas as Central Government may from time to time modify. It is clear as noon day that areas where HRA is admissible limits of locality includes notified areas, i.e., Mosaboni Block in the district of State of Jharkhand.
22. So far as present case relates to notified area Mosaboni block as two stations namely Jadugoda and Surda fall within 13.2 kms and the same notified area known as Mosaboni Block. The relevant HRA Rules and Orders to answer the controversy involved in the present case, condition of drawal of HRA as stipulated in para 3(a)(i) read with (iii) and Para 5(c) whereby it is clearly provided that a Government servant shall not be entitled to HRA if his wife/her husband has been allotted government accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government and Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi-Government Organization such as notified area or 17 OA No. /050/0332/2021 Municipality, Port Trust etc. where he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in the accommodation rented by him/her.
23. So far as the present case on hand, it is admitted fact that husband of the applicant is working as Additional Superintendent, UCIL (Department of Atomic Energy, G.O.I.) and Government quarter No.5/19, Type-IV, UCIL Colony, Jadugoda has been allotted, the fact of the matter is undisputed. The applicant is disputing that two stations do not fall under the same station and so also has stated that in view of Patna Bench OM dated 21.07.2015 (Annexure -2) both places fall under "Z"
category cities and hence the applicant is entitled for HRA.
24. So far as contention of applicant related to O.M. dated 21.07.2015 same is of no help to applicant. The said O.M. dated 21.07.2015 has been issued for re-classification/upgradation of cities/town for purpose of grant of rate of H.R.A. to Central Government employees and cities/town not in the OM shall be under Z category cities for rate of HRA as also prescribed in OM dated 07.07.2017 in continuation of O.M. dated 21.07.2015 OM dated 07.07.2017 extracted hereinabove. Thus, the OM dated 21.07.2015 or OM dated 07.07.2017 do not relate to definition of same station. The contention of applicant that both stations are in Z category of OM dated 21.07.2015 hence to be treated as not in same station is misconceived and is of no help and deserves to be rejected in toto. As applicant not entitled for HRA hence O.M. dated 21.07.2015 not attracted. 18 OA No. /050/0332/2021
25. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing applicant laid much emphasis on law laid down in cases of State of Punjab & Ors. Versus Rafiq Masih (Whitewasher) (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra).
26. But with great respect it is settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is to be tested on the basis of facts of each case. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, Patna Bench (2014) 5 SCC 75. Relevant paragraph reads as under:-
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for that what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the facts and situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
[Emphasis supplied]
27. So also Hon'ble Supreme Court held in case of Nair Service Society versus DR. T. Beer Masthan, (2009) 5 SCC 545, their Lordships held as :-
"48...It is well settled that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understand with reference to the particular service rules governing the filed."
[Emphasis supplied]
28. Now proceeding to examine factual aspects as was in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. versus Rafiq Masih (Whitesasher) (supra) and found there from that it is a batch of cases wherein private respondents/employees were granted benefits because of wrongful 19 OA No. /050/0332/2021 fixation of salary without being guilty of any incorrect information which led authority to commit mistake of making a higher payment to employees. So far as present case in hand is concerned relates to recovery from HRA, illegally paid to applicant on furnishing certificate that applicant residing in rented accommodation by suppressing the fact of the matter that husband was already allotted Government accommodation in adjoining area at Jadugoda within definition of 'same station". On complaints dated 11.06.2019 and 12.11.2019 as evident from letter dated 24.12.2019 (Annexure A with WS), case for Patna Bench recovery was referred to KVS (HQ).
29. On examination of the factual aspects as was in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) issue was related to recovery of increments granted, while appellant was in service to be recovered from him almost 10 years after retirement, as increments granted while in service on account of error, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted relief in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve from hardships of retired employees. Therefore, ratio laid down in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) and in case of Thomas Daniel (supra) is not at all applicable in present case. The HRA is never meant to supplement the pay, which a government servant receives. The provisions of HRA are made on assumption that employees do not get private accommodation at reasonable rent commensurate with the pay which they get.
30. What comes out loud and clear that undisputedly husband of applicant allotted government accommodation at UCIL Colony, 20 OA No. /050/0332/2021 Jadugoda about 13.2 kms from the place of posting of applicant, i.e., KVS-Surda. The Para 3(a)(i) of HRA General Rules and Orders as extracted herein above limit of locality also include notified areas. So far as present case is concerned both stations i.e. Jadugoda and Surda are within 13.2 kms under notified area - block Mosaboni, treated as contiguous to limit of locality in terms of Para 3(a)(i) and in terms of OM dated 20.12.1989 of Ministry of Finance and same locality defined same station as per HRA Rules and Orders.
31. Undisputedly, husband of the applicant has already allotted Patna Bench government accommodation at UCIL Colony, Jadugoda and the applicant is posted at KVS-Surda within 13.2 kms. From place of posting and both stations are within the same Mosaboni block, as explained in the foregoing paragraphs, hence, in view of Para 3(a)(i), 5(c) (iii) and O.M. dated 20.12.1989, HRA General Rules and Orders, the applicant is not entitled for HRA and the present Original Application is bereft of merit deserves dismissal.
CONCLUSION
32. This Tribunal has already analyzed the issue in detail in light of aforesaid analysis. Accordingly the issue is decided against the applicant. The impugned orders dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure 4-D) and dated 13.04.2021 (Annexure A-1) in the present OA are upheld and recovery being justified as husband of the applicant has already allotted government accommodation at UCIL Colony, Jadugoda and KVS- 21 OA No. /050/0332/2021 Surda and Jadugoda fall under the same station and the impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity and remain unassailable.
33. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the present OA being devoid of merit.
34. The OA is accordingly dismissed.
35. There shall be no order as to costs.
36. As a sequel thereof pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Patna Bench (Ajay Pratap Singh) Judicial Member.
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
na/-