Punjab-Haryana High Court
Director General C.S.I.O. & Another vs S.C. Chhabra And Another on 21 March, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9620-C of 1998
DATE OF DECISION: March 21, 2009
Director General C.S.I.O. & another
...Petitioners
Versus
S.C. Chhabra and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA
Present: Mr. Sunder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
None for respondent No. 1.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
This petition is directed against order dated 11.2.1998 passed in O.A. No. 1290/CH-1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') granting House Rent Allowance to the applicant-respondent No. 1 on the ground that he has been working in a purely private institution i.e. Central Scientific Instrument Organisation (for brevity, 'CSIO'). The aforementioned finding has been recorded on the basis of the judgment of C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 2 Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, (1975) 1 SCC 485. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Darshan Kaur v. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 493-CH of 1992, decided on 21.5.1993, Annexure P-2). The operative part of the order dated 11.2.1998, passed by the Tribunal reads thus:-
"3. ......Notwithstanding the objection taken by the respondents it is seen that in the case of Smt. Darshan Kaur (Supra) the issues as involved in the present case were directly before the Bench and were adjudicated upon. There also the applicant Darshan Kaur was an employee of the State Government being a JBT Teacher while her husband was employee of CSIO. The Bench in para 4 relying upon the judgement of the Sabhajit Tewari as rendered by the Supreme Court, has concluded that CSIO which is part of CSIR is only a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act even though the Government exercises financial and administrative control over it. There being adjudication by this Bench on similar question, this Bench is bound by the same as there is no material to differ with the same. Matter has also been considered, though not totally of similarly placed persons in the case of S.C. Tajarshi Vs. Union of India, reported as *5(4) SLR, 156 (Annexure A-3) and (Annexure A-4).
4. Finding the present case covered under the earlier judgements of this Bench, applicant cannot be denied H.R.A. C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 3 as claimed by him. However, he cannot get this relief w.e.f.
1979 or what he has termed as from the due date. Since HRA is payable every month, the O.A. is not to be dismissed in toto but his claim has to be considered which would fall within the period of limitation. As per the respondents applicant had filed a representation for grant of HRA on 31.12.1993. Final order of rejection of the same has been passed by the respondents vide Annexure A-1 on November 15, 1996. In the opinion of this Bench the applicant would be entitled to payment of HRA atleast from the date his representation was submitted to the respondents i.e. 31.12.93."
Mr. Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that apart from the fact that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, the case of the applicant- respondent No. 1 is based on the interpretation, which is required to be given to para 5(c)(iii) of the Office Memorandum No. F.2.(37)-E-II(B)/64, dated 27.11.1965. Learned counsel has emphasised that according to the aforesaid clause a Government servant would not be entitled to House Rent Allowance if the spouse 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 the other spouse resides in that accommodation or separately by hiring the accommodation. According to C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 4 the learned counsel the plain meaning of the aforesaid clause is that if any of the spouse is allotted accommodation in a governmental or semi- governmental organization or a public undertaking then no House Rent Allowance to them would be payable irrespective of sharing the accommodation with the spouse who has been allotted the accommodation at the same station. He has submitted that the reliance placed by the Tribunal in its earlier judgment in Darshan Kaur's case (supra) is totally misplaced despite the fact that the basic rationale underlying Darshan Kaur's case has been knocked down by overruling of the judgment in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) in a later judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (supra). His simple argument is that once no accommodation has been made by CSIO then it would be wholly irrelevant to consider whether CSIO is a public authority or a semi-Government organization or an autonomous public undertaking. According to the learned counsel the consideration has to be based on the character of the allotting organization, which in the present case would be the Panjab University.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the applicant- respondent No. 1.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book with his assistance, the first question need determination in the instant petition is whether the case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 would fall within para 5(c)(iii) of O.M. dated 27.11.1965, which is extracted below:-
C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 5
"5(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 a Municipality, Port Trust, Nationalised Bank, 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."
A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that a government servant would not be entitled to House Rent Allowance if, inter alia, his/her spouse 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.. The provision further goes on to say that it would also not be material whether the other spouse who has not been allotted the accommodation resides in the allotted accommodation or C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 6 resides separately in accommodation rented by the other spouse. Therefore, the question which requires consideration is whether the wife of the applicant-respondent No. 1 has been allotted accommodation by a Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-Government organization, such as Municipality or Port Trust etc. The case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 as projected before the Tribunal is that his wife Smt. Usha Rani has been allotted accommodation by the Panjab University where she has been working in her capacity as a Reader in the Department of Evening Studies at Chandigarh itself. It has also been admitted that the applicant-respondent No. 1 has been residing in that accommodation with her. It is beyond any dispute that the Panjab University has been created by the Panjab University Act (VII of 1947). Once a body is created by a statute enacted by the State legislature or the Parliament then it acquires the status of either a public undertaking or semi-Government organisation, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449. Therefore, the accommodation allotted to the wife of the applicant-respondent No. 1 at Chandigarh would be wholly covered by para 5(c)(iii) of the O.M. dated 27.11.1965. Once the accommodation is allotted by such a semi-Government organisation or autonomous public undertaking then even sharing by other spouse is rendered insignificant as per the provisions of para 5(c)(iii) of the O.M. dated 27.11.1965. However, in the present case it has come on record that the applicant-respondent No. 1 has been sharing the accommodation with his wife, which has been allotted by the Panjab University. Therefore, it is C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 7 a clear case where the applicant-respondent No. 1 cannot successfully claim the benefit of House Rent Allowance.
The Tribunal has committed grave error in law by following the judgment in Darshan Kaur's case (supra) because in that case recovery was sought to be effected from Smt. Darshan Kaur on the ground that her husband had been allotted Government accommodation in C.S.I.O. Colony, Chandigarh, on the ground that CSIO has not been held to be a public body by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra), the Tribunal had held that the accommodation allotted to her husband cannot be regarded to have been allotted by the Central Government, State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-Government organisation such as Municipality, Port Trust etc. It was, therefore, held that the House Rent Allowance availed by Smt. Darshan Kaur was lawful. Accordingly, benefit was granted. In the present case, the accommodation has not been allotted by a private organisation as was the position in Darshan Kaur's case (supra). The accommodation in the present case has been allotted to the spouse of the applicant-respondent No. 1 by the Panjab University, which is a creature of the statute and it has to act according to the legislation. We also find considerable force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was wholly irrelevant for the Tribunal to apply the principle of law laid down in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) merely because it has granted the benefit of House Rent Allowance in Darshan Kaur's case (supra) on that basis. In any case, the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) has already been C.W.P. No. 9620-C of 1998 8 overruled in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (supra). Therefore, the Tribunal has committed grave error in law and accordingly the impugned order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable.
For the reasons aforementioned, order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1290/CH of 1996 is set aside. The Original Application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1 is hereby dismissed. No costs.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(H.S. BHALLA)
March 21, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor