Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Nirupama Chaudhary on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 125 of 2017
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Ranchi ...... Appellants
Versus
Nirupama Chaudhary, wife of Ajoy Kumar, r/o Flat No.D/3, Akanksha
Apartment, South Office Para, Doranda, PO & PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi
....Respondent
--------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
For the State of Jharkhand : Mr. Abhinay Kumar, AC to GA-I
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---------------
ORDER
th 16 March 2023 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The State of Jharkhand has taken exception to the order dated 7th September 2016 passed in W.P(S) No.5235 of 2015.
2. The writ petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Harijan Balak Middle School, Doranda, Ranchi. At the relevant time, her husband who is an Assistant Audit Officer was posted in the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Jharkhand, Ranchi. Initially, the writ petitioner did not draw House Rent Allowance (in short, "HRA") while she was staying with her husband in the Government quarter. However, after they purchased a house the writ petitioner moved an application for HRA which was not decided by the competent authority. Compelled, she approached the writ Court in W.P(S) No.5235 of 2015.
3. The main objection taken by the State of Jharkhand to the writ Court's order is based on the provisions under Rule 6 (x) of the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980 (in short, "HRA Rules").
4. This Rule has been quoted and extensively dealt with by the writ Court in the order dated 7th September 2016. The writ Court has arrived 2 L.P.A No.125 of 2017 at a conclusion that the Rule 6 (x) of the HRA Rules do not provide any limitation or restrictions on drawal of HRA by both spouse living in the same Government accommodation.
5. The writ Court has held as under:
"6. In the present case, admittedly, though both the petitioner and her husband are Government servants, they are not residing in any government quarter, rather they are residing together in their own flat. Admittedly, the petitioner had not claimed any HRA for the period, they were residing together in Government's quarter allotted to her husband. It is only after surrendering the Government's quarter and shifting in their own accommodation, the petitioner has claimed the HRA. In the entire Rule placed by learned counsel for the State, there is no provision to show that, when both the spouses are Government servants and they are living together in their own house, and if one of the spouses is getting the House Rent Allowance, the other shall not be entitled to the same. Thus, in my considered view, the submission of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner is not entitled to the HRA, has no legs to stand.
7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the respondent authorities are directed to release the admissible HRA to the petitioner w.e.f. the month of February 2008, after the petitioner and her husband left the Government quarter and they are living together in their own flat. The respondents are directed to make the payment of the arrears of admissible HRA, together with the current admissible HRA to the petitioner, positively within the period of two months after communication / production of this Order."
6. Not only the present Letters Patent Appeal is misconceived, it needs to be indicated by this Court that the State of Jharkhand must demonstrate that it is a model litigant. It is required of the State of Jharkhand to adhere to its own litigation policy and not to file frivolous cases just for the sake of challenging every order of the Court.
7. What is the distinguishing feature in this case is that the writ petitioner and her husband both are not employed under the Government of Jharkhand - the writ petitioner's husband is a Central Government employee. Evidently, both are regulated by different set of service rules and regulations and therefore insistence of the State of Jharkhand that the writ petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher in Government Harijan Balak Middle School, Doranda, Ranchi cannot draw HRA while living with her husband cannot be countenanced in law.
8. In view of the above, L.P.A No.125 of 2017 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated :16th March 2023 sudhir/N.A.F.R.