Jharkhand High Court
Shambhu Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4588 of 2023
-------
1 Shambhu Prasad, aged about 48 yrs, S/o. Late Saukhi Saw, R/o. 58, near Bhagat Shiv Mandir, Maniatand, Dumariatand, P.O. + P.S. + Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 2 Uday Singh, age about 49 yrs, S/o. Late Bhagwan Singh, R/o. L-662, Near Talatalla Mandir, Saharpura Sindri, P.O. P.S. Sindri, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 3 Dinesh Kumar Rajak, aged about 55 yrs, S/o. Late Kumar Sen Rajak, R/o. House No.15, C.M.P.F Colony, Jagjiwan Nagar, Barmasia, P.O. P.S. +Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 4 Sita Ram Mahatha, aged about- 48 yrs, S/o. Sarveshwar Mahatha, R/o. Shaharjuri, P.O. Galgaltand, P.S. Chandankiyari, Dist: Bokaro, Jharkhand 5 Tarapad Hembram, aged about 50 yrs, S/o. Sri. Lusu Hembram, R/o. Vill. Barketni, Nawatand, P.O. Maira, P.S. - Tundi, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 6 Shamim Akhter Ansari, aged about 49 yrs, S/o. Md. Nasiruddin Ansari, R/o. Vill. Gaidhera, P.O. + P.S. Govindpur, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 7 Dilip Kumar Rawani, aged about 50 yrs, S/o. late Shiv Balak Ram, R/o. Godhur Water Board Road, P.O.- Kusunda, P.S- Keuduadih, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 8 Lekha Ram Murmu, aged about 51 yrs, S/o. Late Jiya Ram Murmu, R/o. Asanbani, P.O. Yadavpur, P.S Barwadda, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand 9 Bijay Shankar Singh, aged about 58 yrs, S/o. Late Saryu Singh, R/o. 104, Babudih, Near Babudih Durga Mandir Zila School, P.Ο. Bishnupur, P.S. Dhanbad, Jharkhand Topchanchi, Dist:
1
10 . Paika Murmu, aged about 54 yrs, S/o. Late Lal Murmu, R/o. Vill. Gargaro, P.O. Bardohi, P.S. Dhanbad, Jharkhand Govindpur, Dist: 11 . Hari Murmu, aged about 51 yrs, S/o. Rasik Murmu, R/o. Nagnagar, P.O.- Nagnagar, P.S.- Barwadda, Dist:
Dhanbad, Jharkhand
12 . Lalita Roy, aged about 52 yrs, W/o. Ram Kumar Singh, R/o. M.I.G., A/34, Housing Colony, P.O. + P.S.+ Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, department of Science of Technology, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Director, Department of Higher & Technical Education, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. + P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. Director, Birsa Institute of Technology, Sindri, P.O. - Sindri, P.S. Sindri, Dhanbad, Dist: Dhanbad, Jharkhand
5. Senior Administrative officer, Birsa Institute of Technology, Sindri, P.O. + P.S. Sindri, Dhanbad, Dist:
Dhanbad, Jharkhand .......Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SCVII For the BIT : Mr. M. K. Roy, Adv.
.
-------
05/Dated:05.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing the part of the order issued under Memo No.93 dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure-3); whereby it has been directed that all those Grade-III and Grade-IV employees who have not availed government quarter shall apply for the same within ten days and upon failure of the same it shall be presumed that they are not in need of the same and they shall be denied from House Rent Allowance as per the Rule.
3. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were getting House Rent Allowance since last more than 10 years and all of a sudden, the same has been stopped. He further draws attention of this Court towards the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules 1980 which has been produced before this Court today; taken on record, and submits that Rule 8 of this Rule governs with an employee who is having their own house and it is indicated that they shall also be eligible for HRA.
Relying upon the rule-8 of the said Rules he submits that the concerned respondent be directed to start paying the HRA to the petitioners and also pay the arrear of HRA which has not been paid to them.
5. Mr. Zaid Imam, learned AC to SCVII representing the respondents draws attention of this 3 Court towards Clause 5(a) of the same Rule and submits that those government servants who are eligible for government accommodation the allowance will be admissible only if they have applied for such accommodation in accordance with the prescribed procedure, if any, but has not been provided to them.
Relying upon this Rule, learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the petitioners have not applied; as such, they are not entitled for the HRA.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that the whole case lies on interpretation of different rules of Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980. The petitioners is relying upon Rule-8 of the said Rules which deals with the HRA to the government servants who are having their own house. For brevity, the same is referred herein below:-
Rule -8 quoted herein below:-
"8. A Government servant living in a house owned by him, his wife, children, father or mother shall also be eligible for House Rent Allowance under these Rules. In such cases the gross rental value of the house or, if he is not in occupation of the entire house, or the portion of house actually occupied by him (as ascertained from its assessed value the for municipal purpose or otherwise), without deduction of rebate of 10 per cent on account of repairs and including municipal and other taxes that 4 are legally payable by the owner other than "Service taxes" levied separately and described as such, shall be taken as the rent paid by him for private accommodation for the purposes of these Rules........"
From bare perusal of Rule-8 it appears that this is special Rule made for those Government servants who are having their own accommodation; however, they are entitled for the HRA.
So far are Rule 5(a) is concerned; it appears that it is for those government servants who are eligible for government accommodation but they will get allowance only if they applied for the same and if they have not been provided quarters.
For brevity, Rule 5(a) is extracted herein below:
5. The grant of House Rent Allowance shall be subject to the following conditions:
"(a) To those Government servants who are eligible for Government accommodation, the allowance will be admissible only if they have applied for such accommodation in accordance with the prescribed procedure, if, any, but have not been provided with it."
Thus, it is evident that Rule 5(a) deals with the eligibility for taking HRA for those government servants when they applied for the Government quarter but the same has not been provided to them and Rule 8 deals with eligibility of government servants who are having their own house; as such, the stand taken in the counter affidavit does not have any leg stands in the eye of law. 5
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for HRA as per Rule 8 of the Rules 1980 which has also been relied by the respondent. Hence, the instant writ application is hereby allowed by directing the respondent nos.4 and 5 to start paying the HRA to the petitioners and also to calculate the arrears of HRA and pay the same.
Before parting it is also necessary to indicate that right from 2010 till 2023 the petitioners were getting HRA; however, due to some misconception of this Rule, the same has been stopped, which has been clarified herein above.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed with the manner stated herein above. Pending I.A.s, if any, also closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-
AFR/ 6