Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Priyanka Dutta & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 August, 2022
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
17.08.2022
ct no. 13
Sl No. 23
ap
W.P.A. No. 17291 of 2022
Priyanka Dutta & Ors.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Debjani Sengupta,
Ms. Koyel Bag,
Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee,
Ms. Shahina Haque.
....for the petitioners
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay,
Ms. Iti Dutta.
..for the State.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be
taken on record.
The writ petitioners are the Assistant
Teachers under the State. The subject matter of
challenge is Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9,
2012 and Corrigendum dated December 27, 2018,
issued by the Secretary, Finance Department,
Government of West Bengal and the Memo No. 68-
ES/Audit/12A-47/17 dated November 16, 2017,
issued by the Special Secretary, School Education
Department, Government of West Bengal.
House Rent Allowance paid to Assistant
Teachers under the State is normally linked to the
HRA paid to their spouses who are also employed
with the State Authority. The object is to ensure
2
that a double benefit of HRA is not availed by a
couple staying under the same roof.
The impugned memos however, sought to
apply the said rule even to those Assistant
Teachers who spouses are employed in Non-State
private organization.
As a consequence whereof, such person like
the petitioners are either denied HRA or allowed
the same only to a limited extent under a ceiling.
The issue was gone into and addressed in great
detail by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court. A
series of writ petitions were heard on the issue,
and judgment was delivered inter alia, in WPA
1389 of 2018 (Mousumi Biswas and another vs.
State of West Bengal and others) on March 16,
2021.
"48. Therefore, to summarize the key takeaways of
the findings of the Court, the same is stated as
follows:
a) The Audit Memo dated November 16, 2017
and Memo No. 2554/G-SE dated December
28, 2017 are held to have been issued without
authority of law and is set aside on the
grounds of being issued on irrelevant
considerations and being manifestly
arbitrary/discriminatory, in effect as per the
law laid down in Subhasis Negel (supra).
b) Pertaining to the State‟s access to limited
pool of resources which necessitated this
purported rejig of policy in the first place, such
argument stands self-demolished for the
reason that employees of State aided colleges
and universities are getting the full benefits of
drawal of HRA, notwithstanding that their
spouses might be engaged in private
employment. With a lack of a certain
legitimate objective being met by the State,
this therefore, becomes a clear case of
unreasonable classification and hence is
violative of the tenets of equality enshrined
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3
c) Notwithstanding the unreasonable
classification which was carried out in the
case of the petitioners which is patently
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, no technical or expert findings or
relevant factors had been furnished by the
State Respondents to justify the need for the
alleged modification of such policy concerning the drawal of HRA, by the petitioners. There is no demonstration as to the extent of fiscal prudence sought to be achieved by the State by purportedly bringing into consideration the HRA of the spouses (engaged in private employment) of those employees who are serving in nonGovernment/Aided/Sponsored educational institutions, to trigger the common ceiling under the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 and thereby specifying the quantum of funds saved, by the public exchequer. Therefore, such an irregular policy decision merits an interference of this Court as per the principles laid down in Subhasis Negel (supra) and Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra).
d) The impugned, clarificatory Corrigendum dated December 27, 2018 read with the Finance Department Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012 is applicable in the matters of grant of HRA to a state government employee, who are governed by the altogether separate West Bengal Service (ROPA) Rules, 2009 issued vide Memo No. 1691-F dated February 23, 2009 and for the self-same reason, it is inapplicable to the category of employees employed in nongovernment sponsored institutions, who are governed by the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 for Non- Governmental Educational Institutions, issued by Memo. 46-SE(B) dated February 27, 2009.
e) The impugned, clarificatory corrigendum dated December 27, 2018 (which was issued post the initiation of the present litigation) in so far as it is inconsistent by including within its ambit employees who are serving in non- Government/Aided/Sponsored educational institutions is liable to be struck down for being violative of the Finance Department Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012. The impugned, clarificatory corrigendum could not have risen above its source and is accordingly set aside to such degree of inconsistency as aforesaid.
49. In view thereof, the State Respondents are hereby directed to ensure complete conformity in the payment of HRA which is payable to the petitioners in accordance with the ceiling envisaged in the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 which is applicable to them along with any connected memos, that maybe applicable. If in any case, the payment of such HRA has been stopped in pursuance of the Audit Memo dated November 4 16, 2017, Finance Department Memo No. 5839- F(P) dated July 9, 2012, and Memo No. 2554/G-SE dated December 28, 2017 or other similar memos that have been issued by the various District Inspectors of Schools (S.E) across the State of West Bengal, the arrears of the same must be paid to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of this judgment."
Counsel for the State would argue that an appeal has been preferred by the State being MAT No. 1023 of 2021 against the said judgment and order, which is since pending. The said judgment dated 16th March, 2021, has not been stayed by the Division Bench.
The said judgment is therefore in force and holds good even as on date.
This Court is in complete agreement with the views expressed by His Lordship of a Co-
ordinate Bench in the case of Mousumi Biswas (supra).
In that view of the matter, this Court directs the State to first release HRA benefits to the petitioners in terms of the applicable rules (excluding the impugned Memos), together with complete arrears till date. Any recoveries already made, shall be refunded to the petitioners, within a period of six weeks from date. Any order of recovery still pending, shall remain automatically stayed.
The petitioners shall continue to receive HRA as if the impugned Memos are not in force.
5Needless to mention, the aforesaid order shall abide by the final result of MAT No. 1023 of 2021.
For the purpose of complying with the aforesaid order, the School authority shall forthwith send appropriate requisition/bills and/or calculations to the D.I. of Schools, who shall release payment, within the time stipulated hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)