Karnataka High Court
Smt K Savithramma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 25 October, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO.27646 OF 2012 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN :
Smt. K. Savithramma
W/o Somashekaraiah
Aged about 44 years
Telephone Supervisor
No.756/1, Ground Floor
Police Quarters, VIII Cross
XI Main, HAL II Stage
Indiranagar
Bangalore-560 038. ..Petitioner
(By Sri V.S. Naik, Adv.,)
AND :
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Rep by its Chairman and
Managing Director
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane
Janpath, New Delhi-110013.
-2-
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Rep by its General Manager (East)
Bengalooru Telecom District
Halasuru Telephone Exchange
Halasuru, Bengalooru-560 008.
3. The Accounts Officer-Cash (East)
General Manager (East) Office
Bengalooru Telecom District
Halasuru Telephone Exchange
Halasuru, Bengalooru-560 008. ..Respondents
(By Sri Vishnu Bhat, Adv.,)
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed
by the 3rd respondent dated 22.8.2011 and the order dated
14.6.2012 passed by the CAT., Bangalore in
O.A.No.420/2011 vide Annexure-A2 in Annexure-A and D
respectively.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing,
this day, MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., made the
following:-
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 14.6.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.420/2011. Petitioner is working as an Operator in the respondent-BSNL, whereas her -3- husband Sri Somashekaraiah is a Police Head Constable. Sri Somashekaraiah has occupied an official quarters provided by his employer. The petitioner being the wife of Sri Somashekaraiah, living with her husband happily in the said quarters. The respondents herein have paid house rent allowance (HRA) in favour of the petitioner till 2011. Thereafter proceedings are started against the petitioner for recovering amounts of HRA wrongly paid to the petitioner. An order also came to be passed by the respondents against the petitioner directing the petitioner to repay the entire amounts of HRA received by her. The said order was called in question by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.420/2011, which came to be disposed of by observing thus:-
"The respondents shall calculate the HRA due to be recovered from her without -4- interest and divide it by the entire service life of the applicant. It shall then be calculated equitably and recovery done from the applicant till the date of her retirement on a monthly basis starting from next month onwards. But then, if the applicant takes voluntary retirement or she is out of service for some other reason, then the balance amount can be recovered from her in one isntalment.
OA is disposed of as above. No order as to costs."
2. Undisputedly, husband of the petitioner is allotted official quarters by his employer and has occupied the same. Petitioner being the wife of Sri Somashekaraiah-allottee of the official quarters is living with her husband and family. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to claim HRA amounts independently. Rule 5(c) of the HRA and CCA Rules clearly reveals that the Government Servant shall not -5- be entitled to house rent allowance if he/she shares Government accommodation allotted rent-free to another Government servant. It also makes clear that if the Government servant's wife/husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-Government organization, etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her, he/she is not entitled for rent free accommodation. In view of the same, it is clear that respondents have paid the amounts of HRA wrongly to the petitioner. It is also to be mentioned that the petitioner was also not at fault.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal & others vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, reported in (2012)8 SCC 117 has ruled -6- that any amount paid/received without authority of law, can always be recovered. Law imposes an obligation on payee to repay the money lest it would amount to unjust enrichment.
Hence, following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Apex Court, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-