Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Ichhabati Dash vs M/O Defence on 25 September, 2019
>'l:w£(C^^
\
:/ iu
«-
\
/? 5
//
la
/ s
//
r
{■■ IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CALCUTTA BENCH, CALCUTTA
;
<:■
i O. A. No. 350/00 7 2. 2- of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
ICHHABATI DASH, wife of Shri Surkanti Dash,
aged about years, residing at K.V. No.
1, ishapore, Post Office- Ichapur-Nawabganj,
District- 24-Parganas (North), Pin-743144, and
;
working as Trained Graduate Teacher in the
school of Rifle Factory, Ishapore, Post Office-
ishapore Nawabganj, District- North 24-
I
: Parganas, Pin 743144;
...Applicant
-Versus-
1. UNION OF INDIA service through the
i
i
Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Defence
and Production), Government of India.
South Block, New Delhi-110001.
r
i; 2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-DGOF, Ordnance
f
t
t- Factory Board, having his office at 10A,
7
f
| Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata-
S' 700001
t«
f:
i.
i
F
«r
r-
!*'i
s $
b
t
//
' 4 m
tJI
M i
i . i
!
! 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, Gun & Shell
f.
I Factory, Cossipore, 7, Khagen Chatterjee
r
f.* • ir
Road, Cossipore, Kolkata- 700002.
5
i■
y
?
•- 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, Rifle Factory,
Iv
\ ■
Ishapore, Post Office-lchapore-Nawabganj, fj
i
District-24-Parganas (North), Pin-743144;
r
f 5. THE DIRECTOR OF ESTATES, u
r
: Government of India, Ministry of Urban
5
! Development Department, Nirman Bhawan,
i
New Delhi-110011
...Respondents.
i
!
!
!
S
\
i
1
\ .
(
1
J:
V
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
No.O A.350/722/2016
Date of order:
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
ICHHABATI DASH
VS.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
For the applicant : Mr. P.C.Das, counsel
, f, \ s t r„
For the responder . Mr. P. Mukherjee,
Jr \ \ \ d Rfoi r)%
\ %
'"s
^-
w f MenriBete//
Bidisha Sdneriee. Judicial I
reliefs:-
dated
. shagSfe whereby ancf*Wh$eunder
%
b) "■'k^To qfaj&l/ghjI/oPseg aside the impugne^wce^t&sj?datedrl3.03.2010
and l2.03?20ld issued bp'thejygigQ^f^fidiapy\foicf)$ouir^pplicant was
forced'^to obtajn 'Nd^ccpm^qdptipnrQprilficateJ^esplfe the applicant
producedPer pdy-.s[ips befbreithe authority which is^cilearly against the
decision passed^by tills'Hon'ble Tribunal, in o catenqfof decisions as well as
Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Cgprt'Peing Annexure A-4 of this
original application;
c) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to
release the House Rent Allowance in favour of the applicant with effect from
the date her appointment and to release the same along with all arrears and
consequential benefits in the light of the decision made by this Hon'ble
Tribunal in O.A.No.1183 of 2010 dated 18.11.2010 along with decision of the
Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No.lll of 2011 dated 17.05.2011
and ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition
being SLP(Civil)No.26234 of 2011 vide order dated 29.06.2011 as well as in
the light of the recent order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal dated
14.08.2013 in O.A.No.875 of 2012 and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court at
Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No.470 of 2013{Union of India & Ors. vs. Apu Singh &
Ors.);
d) Costs and incidental of this original application;
f
2
//
e) Any further or other order or orders os Your Honour may seem fit and
proper."
2. The subject matter of challenge in the present O.A. is a speaking
order dated 22.01.2016 issued pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal
dated 04.12.2015 in O.A.No.350/1838/2015.
3. Ld. counsels were heard and materials on record were perused.
4. This Tribunal in O.A.No.350/1838/2015 had ordered thus:-
"3. It is noticed that the representation dated 02.05.2011 seeking HRA is
pending before the GengrdP^hjjjige^. Ipfle'lgicjpty, ishapore and no adverse
order has beep pgs'deikdn \he said represinfatlorf as yef.''fa such no adverse
order is.under^^llenge. ^
Le^ed 'counsel^^^^^^r^^a^toi/aht to lny n&feefcthe decision
4.
rendered in OA.ll^mOlU^atedwS&l.ZOlW^hereafte^me^re^resenta'tion
vyas fitot' it is ais^gc^^hotdhj^ay&c^k render$&ttMk Tribunal
n batdrfcases waStpffTrmed by the
no^ High 18.07.1©$ /n| WPCT
No.MO/2013 472/201^ 473/2013,
474/2013 wherehj^e^Hd^M^^mb^bbser^Mthe foilowingfemphasis
»♦»
( 5
^ s
"wM^te si/fprisecl \a&%t^e^etitioners di<£jjjot §are to
implement thereofHer# order af th^fribunal as upheld up to the
■i
Supr<em^urtJnWijkei/^J^WIoy,ees^lfinstead, required each
\
% eipfaloyed^to '-approach the Tribunpl^befpre ^securing House Rent
\ Allowance. \*js^vell-settled that evefoefnplofehaejbd noifrush to the
\ Court f<$jredreksal jgf the same* claim,\/as isf granted to other
^emplbypes, sirpijarjy^ sltuatecf, b\f:Sddrts. It/(s expected that the
empJo^r\impiem'ehis ^pe^decisiwi^of the/'Courjj&in respect of all
emplbyees afidpqt just those who hajve^the wherewithal to approach
the Coun^lnjfie case^StdtS^flCarnatgkd^and Others vs. C. Lalitha,
reported in (2lffiB)2^GC^J#J;he&tf0reme Court has observed that it
is not necessary for each individual to approach the Court when one
person similarly situated has been granted the relief by the Court. The
emolover is expected to aoolv the same loaic in respect of all other
employees to grant them relief. This would apply with greater force
when Government is the emolover as it is supposedly a model
employer.
In our opinion, the impugned order is correct and in
consonance with the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
WPCT No.lll of 2011, which has been confirmed by the Supreme
Court. The criticism of the learned counsel for the petitioners against
the order is unfounded and baseless. We see no reason to interfere
with the order. i
The writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs."
P
3
5. In view of the settled position, as the said judgment indicates and the
orders passed in the OAs, the General Manager, Rifle Factory, Ishapore Is
directed to look into the grievance of the present applicant, to give her a
personal hearing, if required and dispose of the representation within 1
month. In case applicant is entitled to the relief as claimed for, appropriate
order shall be passed within 2 months thereafter, in the light of the decision
referred to hereinabove. The decision so taken shall be communicated
immediately thereafter to the applicant
6. OA is accordingly disposed of. No costs."
Pursuant to the said direction a speaking order was issued which
reads as under:-
IIP• • • ' • % SPEAKING ORDER
No. l754/9/Housifig/yard;>- ^ S¥ DaiedJ2701/2016 ' ' V wm
- „ f'/jr i ✓ To Srm^Iclihabati.Dash TGT/RFHS ' Personal No. 818254 Through HOS/RFHS Sub Arrear HRA release of.
s . Ref> Hon'ble CAT Calcutta Order-dated 04/12/2015 .in OA No. 350/01:83-8 Of 201:5 v You:are transferred.from GSF joined-RFI w.e.f. 01.03.08 on permanent transfer, On yoiir 'joiriing onlraiisfer in this factory youdidhot apply for ailotmentof quarters. Even though many circulars for allotment of.quarters have : been issued ks per SRO provisions and norms.............. f F In accordance with instructions issued by Ordnance Factory Board (OFB). Kolkata vide no. 3065/A/A dated-.v r. ;??-
, . ;04i04.2006 and t:S. Note.No. 263fies,si:VoM).da(ed 2f/07^005. the matter of allotpiem,ipf-govt, »'• of-HRA to the employees .of Ordiistryjaactories, is.regulated in terms of provisions contained •ih.th'e?SRO;ri49da'ted •: '23,.09';:2004i .Fundamental Rules Part-^, .Ministry, of Finance OM No. F-2 (37-)" F;. whichffe:as:urider:* I' 5 a) All employees.of Ordnance & Ordnance Equipment ,Fnctories.ore tb;apply'.fongovt. accommodation;iiv the estate. Anyone who does not apply for a govt, accommodation will mot'be eligible for HRA. <■
b) If a Covt. accommodation is allotted-and the allotted refuses to take .possession, he/she will not be : entitled for HRA.
c) If even a single accommodation of a particular type is vacant, no one entitled for such accommodation will be paid HRA.
V d) As per the relevant SRO and the system that is being followed in the factory is that the individual is to f- apply in a format against advertisement for quarter issued from time to time and nVentiqning'tHereih'the -
No. of-thciquarter of his/her. entitlement advertised for the purpose. Thus.thc^quarters'afe^dffered .to -the-- employeesjthrdugh.such advertisement and they have to app!y.:agamsMhe^adve^ I e) The circular is a must because the quarters are allotted for those-plreacly holding-quarters and ■new recruits .and/or come on transfer. Those who are coming on.transfer they are treated'as .hew employee in the factory. As.per the;rule, those who are holding quaner will get the,priority in change over and then $ remaining-quarters are allotted according to seniority read with the choice^ndicated in the application ■ format..
:I03. Further, as per clarification given by the Ministry of Urban Development OM No.iFi;i2034/l/20Q7rPQL 111 |dated 14.11.2007 received under the MoD ID No. l055/IV/D(Fy.Iiy07 dated-3T03.2008/as :sent bj^OFB.A'ide Imnstruction;No.3-165/A/A dated .06.06.2008, HRA can be paid only if Govt...accommddation is-not available. •In-tfre iCmatter of ndmissibility of HRA, the MoD further clarified that HRA would be admissible only in the event of an ^'employee not being able to secure govt, accommodation and HRA cannot be paid when the govt, accommodation |i\vas available but the employee voluntarily surrendered it.
504; It is understandaolc that thc-Go-A. quarters arc made to facilitate the emplcyees. for stayal. Govt, money is ^invested for the purpose and if the employees do not stay in the quarter then this is. a substantial loss to the exchequer _t i-whifeh is adversely criticized in CAG audit.
.
'm
ife ■■ ■ ■
$
4
%
/
A. Record shows that you are erroneously granted from March-2008 to February-20iO. Even though you -
/did not produce MAC. As per Ministry of Finance O.M. No. F-2(37)-E-ll(B)/54 dated 27.11.1965, House Rent j; Allowance would be admissible only on production of "No Accommodation certificate' (NAC) issued by'the f /■ Gompetent Authority. In this context observation of A.O./RFI issued vide letter No. P/V-Vol-IV dated 12/03^01015 ' as under " In this connection it is requested to ensure that HRA claimed in do Sint. Idihabati Dash. Teacher is proper as per issue of NAC is concerned. Further, other cases may also be verified so far claim for HRA is conccmcd'* * Accordingly HRA was stopped from salary bill from March-20!0. You have applied for Govt, accommodation vide ' your application dt. 04.05.11 for the first time after a lapse of more than 3 yrs from the date of your joining. '•' :06.. Circulars for .allotment of Govt, accommodation were issued from lime to time asking the employees to ' apply in the format as prescribed in the said circulars. Record shows that the you did not apply in response to any of the circulars since your joining in this factory. In this context, circulars of vacant quarters notified and the position is given below:-
07: You applied for Govt, accommodation only on 04.05.2011. NAC was issued to her on 04.05^011 as per Govt, instructions mentioned above. Accordingly, HRA was released to them with effect from the same date i.e. 04.05.2011 which is in consonance with Govt. Instructions.
SI Name of Date of Date of Position of Circular Whether Remarks No applicant' joining application vacant issued applied on for quarter quarters during the against transfer at the time from period any of joining March- March-2008 specific and nature 2008(0 to M&y2011 circular of May-2011 Type-Ill application ill (?) (3) ia lehhabati Trf. From 04.05.1 land Total 147 No.58dt. Not Govt, order l.S. Note.
Dash GSF and not against Nos. 06/3/08, applied- -No.-263/A/A (Volf)
join in any specific No. 62 dt. dt. 29.07.05 states that
RFIon quarters 10/03/08 even if a single
01.03.08 No. 81 dt. accommodation of a
02/04/08, particular type is
■/
No. 87 dt. i • , ^vacant, no one entitled
11/04/08, for such
No. 85 dt. , ' accommodation will,
10/04/08 ' be paid HRA.
No. 89 dt. • i <
16/04/08,
i; No. 100, dt. i •
30/04/08, r. (
No. 117dt.
- ■.*- .
22/05/08,
..4
No. 126 dt. • C
03/06/08,
/ No. 143 dt. (,
23/06/08,
No. 168 dt.
30/07/08,
No. 205 dt.
09/09/08,
No. 24$ dt.
12/11/08,
No. 256 dt.
03/12/08,
■-i
C;,.
■
. ?-
■.n
•* •X
t »• • . 4V
!.
X -'.y
i
t
5
>
f No. 17 dt.
/ 20/01/09, •1
/ No. 120 dt.
16/06/09,
No. 130 dt.
l ./ 03/7/09,
No. 169 dt.
OS/08/09,
No. 226 dt
21/10/09,
No. 264 dt.
01/12/09.
No. 23 dt.
01/02/10,
No. 48 dt.
10/03/10,
■;Ja
No; 82 dt.
03/05/i 0,
No. 89 dt.
1S/05/10.
No. lOldt.
02/06/10,
No.':285 dt. i
26/07/10,
No. 160 dt. -
26/08/10.
No.226 dt.
10/11/10,
No. 234 .
dt.24/11/10, -
No. 247dt.
08/12/10,
No. 05 dt.
06/01/1.1 &
No. 83 dt.
28/03/11
08. You.oppllcd for Govt, accommodation only on 04.05.2011. NAC was issued to you on 04.05.2011 as per. Govt, instructions mentioned above. Accordingly, HRA was released to you with effect from the same date ./.e. 04:05.2011 which-is in consonance with Govt Instructions. Thus any claim to HRA priorto that-dateXapd.if paid) -
that is-recoyerablCf , - • • ' . ' v- -' ?
This disposes of your ap'piicati'on dt.02/05/2011 in compliance with'the order of'tlie 'Hon'ble/GAT dt: .
^ ► ' * . .
04/12/2015. ''l '
v
t • ■%
c -
(Olficmln Chrge)
Rifle Facpry Ishapore • e
V *v t
\
V V *v
5. We note thatHhe deci$ionJn^0.vAvNt)^873/2G' (Annexure A/ll)
& others clearly clarified the implications of circulars dated 14.11.2007 and 27.11.1965 in the following manner:-
"14. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX The present entitlements are governed by the circular dated 14.11.2007. The 14.11.2007 circular is imperative that the department is bound to explore the possibilities of transferring surplus units to the general pools or to offer the surplus quarters to the willing employees above their entitlements. 14.11.2007 does not operate to deny HRA if the quarter in question is offered/allotted to other employees and 27.11.1965 circular is clear that so iono the quarter remains vacant, the government servant who whose the quarter wos aliotted is not entitled to claim HRA. The at 6 respondents cannot remain oblivious to the explicit provisions of the said circular.
15. The respondents having granted HRA to Apu Singh the applicant in OA.875/12 have only reinforced the entitlements to HRA on allotment to others employees. They cannot be allowed to adopt double standards for same set of employees or discriminate between equal to resort to macro compartmentalization on the basis of micro distinction. It has been submitted by the respondents in their reply to OA 875/12 that Apu Singh "the applicant no.l was issued NAC with effect from 03.02.2011 after finding him eligible as per extant provisions as mentioned in preceding paragraphs. Consequent upon issue of NAC with effect from 03.02.2011 he became entitled for HRA with effect from the same date and accordingly HRA was released with effect from 03.02.2011. As per the instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence, HRA would be admissible only in the event of an employee not being able to secure Govt, accommodation and HRA cannot be paid when Govt, accommodation was available but the employee voluntarily surrendered. In the insfant cdseeGom. accommodation was available at the time when the applicah^ ^ferre^Jlaims^far0RA. The^applicant no.l was issued NAC 001^^^^03.02.2011 when nohiGovt.fa£cpmmbdation as per his entitlement waslavailable." \ ■ v \ 7M£ if in thecasem Agu Singp tl^^mld offer tiwilya^er or grant a "No^Ac^ommoda^^^^fitificate",^here isfaistolutely riaprgasaii why the $ame(§tondard biW 1 Jj#i.e. offering vacant I Nothina&s#^indicate$&mWshow--&*ithatM:desDite tilokeriniq the I vaean,t/surrendMed,MuarteW9ISMrsSffiitb#lesse1§entitlemenim(i.e.tabove I thelifc 'entitlements^ there'fwefeiniaM^I<e%,6hthe auahers remained vacant as f\ V Dossibilities jj^xisiina dendrim^ital^ml' was^noTtonsidered eadier. We find that jfisJn^tar)e'with the decision of ttfe^Hda^ble fliah Court in WPCT 111/11 whefeiht the^Hdh'ble High Court at Calciitta^iia&observe3 that "It is no f fee case df4he respondents where the^auarterh arejstill vacant, in view of the^nespohdents vacating tliese accommodhtions. jfiencefwe do______not see any reason, as tbwvhv thev shouTd-be deprived.", wfiich vieffiis upheld by the Hon'ble Ape&CourtvVbile keeping the questiomdf lawaplen.
17. In such view ftfethe^matter, we dispose of this OA with a direction upon the respondents to ascertain whether the quarters vacated bv the applicants or rendered surplus were ever offered to other employees in terms of para 4(b) or 5 of 04.11.2007 OM. If it is found that the quarters were never offered to other employees in compliance of para 4(b) or 5 of the OM dated 14.11.2007. the Officers who are responsible for keeping the quarters vacant or violating para 4(b) or 5 of OM dated 14.11.2007 be put to task. The applicants shall not be prejudiced for such fallacy of the erring officers and they shall be paid HRA from the due dates which also includes the applicant in OA 873/2012 who was never in requirement of a quarter, as also Apu Singh who is granted HRA but from a subsequent date Iona after he surrendered his quarter. If it is found that the quarters were offered immediately after vacating, and were subsequently allotted to other employees, equal to or above their entitlement. HRA will be paid to the applicants from the date the quarters were so allotted. The entire exercise be completed by two months from the date of communication of this order. With such directions the OA is disposed of. No costs."
ft 7 Said order when assailed before the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT % No.470/2013, the Hon'ble High Court observed as undef:-
"In the present petitions, we are concerned with five Original Applications viz., O.A. 873 of 2012, O.A. 874 of 2012, O.A. 612 of 2012, O.A. 872 of 2012, O.A. 875 of 2012.
The employees, i.e., the Respondents herein, were aggrieved by the decision of the petitioners not to pay them House Rent Allowance, although they had not availed of Government accommodation: These employees contended that they were entitled to House Rent Allowance from the date when they did not occupy the Government accommodation. In the case of some employees this date from which they sought the allowance was from the date of appointment in service. In the case of others it was from a later state, when the employee vacated the Government accommodation.
\ a t <b l r p f»x.
As these ^erqplpyees were not paid inef^ouse^Bent Allowance or arrears of House^Reht Allowance w.e.f. the date t'h'e^M hot occupy or had vacated 4he^G'overnmen0(0aWei^^they filed ™ afphpaid original applicaticM \ J / 1%*. Jk \ .* \ ^ \ V \ I I f jr m , ;' reply wiMjfgd ^yjh^&itio/er/co^^^ng that fhe^ehondents jwer¬ entitlemoH^s^R^^h^^pe^nmmately aftdfThemacated fthe&iuxtrters orfxpmM^a^f^^^nefifas^case mcfcjg. According I to th^Petition^Wim^^^mmmfmificat^ &ssueMy the j-
\ coi^p^tentauth^nty^icatiff^^^eteJsn^GoMrnment adffijpmo.dation l liable for th1^empT6ye§rjfb^dpcupyShe^i^^f entitled tS^Houie Rent v av lAllowance. %/*/1\\\\& ^ I X ^ i 1 | \ jr I \ The r^OTO^yl^agge^iton^syqgerf certain directions for payment of^HouseR^nt AilSwariceTBy a&mrnpri order the Tripunal has cdnsidered tfie ca'se^qf the applicants in ®eq^ofjtjTe% Applications, as is apfhfen^fronAhe oixle^ itself. In O.A. 8J$*%f 20iLfy\hj? appjjtant sought Hous^enhAllovfancefromthe-due-dateiin 0.:A. $12 q0O12jihe applicants sought 1*lQUse*Rjsnt Alidwphce-^rqm theJi3by*-t}ieyy,c£ate<j$he Government Quarters tfrey^hacMnitially otcupfefy. In'^d.A. 87,2«ff201/^also the applicants sought House^Rent Allowance^from-^the date^tney surrendered the Government accommodation occupied byjherife a rlier. Similarly, in O.A. 875 of 2012 the same prayer was maffleTffie applicants had claimed the amount on the basis of the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. 1183 of 2010 [ Om Prakash Sharma and Others VS. Union of India <§ Others ]. The Tribunal took note of the fact that its decision in the aforesaid case had been upheld by this Court in WPCTNo.lll of 2011 on 17th May, 2011 and confirmed later by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil} No.26234 of 2011 by its order dated 26th September, 2012. The Tribunal has then considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the Parties and the relevant Rules applicable for payment of House Rent Allowance. After perusing Rule 4 of the General Rules and Orders relating to those occupying or refusing Government accommodation contained in the House Rent Allowance, the instructions issued by the Directorate of Estate, certain instructions and memoranda issued by the Government from time to time in respect of House Rent Allowance, the aforesaid judgments of the Tribunal, the High Court and the Supreme Court, it has concluded thus:
f 8 V "In such view of the matter, we dispose of this OA with a direction upon the respondents to ascertain whether the quarters vacated by ¥ the applicants or rendered surplus, were ever offered to other employees in terms of para 4 (b) or 5 of 04.11,2007 OM. It if is found that the quarters were never offered to other employees in compliance of para 4 (b) or 5 of the OM dated 14.11.2007, the Officers who are responsible for keeping the quarters vacant or violating para 4 (b) or 5 of OM dated 14.11,2007 be put to task. The applicants shall not be prejudiced for such fallacy of the erring officers and they shall be paid HRA from the due dates which also includes the applicant in OA. 873/2012 who was never in requirement of a quarter, as also Apu Singh who is granted HRA but from a subsequent date long after he surrendered his quarter. If it is found that the quarters were offered immediately after vacating, and were subsequently allotted to other employees, equal to or above their entitlement, HRA will be paid to the applicants from the date the quarters were so allotted. The entire exercise be completed by two * ill months from the jdate; tffj^bmmuojcatipri'of. this order. With such directions thd^p\ is dispose'cl bf^N&ebsfs. ?
X;4
% TtWj?t"Med Counsey^fefjgg^ners argue^at if%e order of the Tribunal is/to' be impl^i^fntep, if wpuidfbe^a huge taslAfphihe Officers copcent^d^Accordijjjfifo kim,S{h§ a^aiiabilii0pf accomrhodatiqnjs readily furnished to all Me appiibanhi ife Jubi^its^at it is^bf* rhsrely the pccomhfodationmamble^^eM^n/ndf^rymt the general pdpl which fwil&ve t0 decid^hether the | accpmmodationiwasj^n^facm^MaSekdespite^whmh the errf&wee trefused f to koscupy the&^rters^W^^^^he^^ted the ^quartqs the I ac^^modation^ougb^vdilSWh-a^^t^d^cl^d to all the&m&oyees.
tyrned Cot/^/urt/ie#tSt|s|4f p^oncrs have^rried-out a tpa^pf the orde$$ii0 tie fri^uftgl Smdh^erefore, have^issued 'No ^ccommodation^lf^q^i4reslpeA^^0y^es from 19th M&y, 2014 and have dird&ed.ttw^release^ofUlj^^^^t /clTd^ande'fngm variouidates.
\ '"'"'I \\ / \ A^cdlding. to*xihe learned Counsefiyfhis /ekercife was, in fact, condbptecNn Aitfust, 201%,and, therefofe, the Tribunal wa^ not right in directing., any'^furtherrexercise to be conducted for^asceifaining whether accommodqpon/'tlzough vacant, 'was hot offered to pfher employees in compliance With para^4(b.) or 5 of thejQffTce Memorandum, dated 14th November, 2007. * -
There is no material before us to indicate that this procedure was undertaken after the impugned order was passed. There is also no material on record to show that it was mandatory for the employees to live in the Government quarters. The appointment letters of these employees have been produced for our perusal and in none of these appointment letters does it appear that the employees are compulsorily required to occupy Government accommodation.
In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law much less an error of law apparent on jhe face of the record...by.JssuihcijSs. aforesaid directions. In fact, it has proceeded on the basis that its earlier decision had been upheld by the High Court and the later by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal was of the view that despite the quarters being surrendered, there was no material to show that the quarters were, in fact, offered to other employees and it is in these circumstances, it has passed . aforesaid directions.
¥ 9 V. / We are surprised that the Petitioners did not care to implement the earlier order of the Tribunal as upheld up to the Supreme Court in respect of all employees and instead, required each employee to approach the Tribunal before securing House Rent Allowance. It is well-settled that every employee need not rush to the Court for redressal of the same claim, as is granted to other employees, similarly situated, by Courts. It is expected that the employer implements the decision of the Court in respect of all employees and not just those who have the wherewithal to approach the Court In the case of State of Karnataka and Others VS. C. Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747, the Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary for each individual to approach the Court when one person similarly situated has been granted the relief by the Court. The employer is expected to apply the same logic in respect of all other employees to grant them relief. This would apply with greater force when Government is the employer as it is supposedly a model employer.
■4V In our opinion, thejmpugjfgdhrgerjs correct-.and in consonance with the decision of thg^Bj^isibn^Benci of ihiS^o^tJn WPCT No. Ill of 2011, which has bee%confirmed by the Supreme Courtf'^ %fi
6.
% 1 I I ^\ Wfc Would furtheRfiore %at vlhife thlt^JribunaLdiscUiSsed the ■fPr-
y %
m
implications, of theJrjouJafl^lJp^lfeaijejPfppd^at it wapnandatory ; *4*** p 8 I I ' ***» W I for the auithorities % explore^ossi&iliitTls^oyfransferring sjjfcplul units to i © ^ t tine ^general pool& jo qffer |H| \urp)lusjfuarters tcfcAhe Ivilling \ W abwe^^i^frafl.|l|g|e^^^,c.h^e.rase employees II\ ^was/1 never \ //> i , f undertaKten by».tndr£espdnaents.vmenA mandatorytocder wa#issued by \ \/v ..'vV / this Tribunai\upanft.the^r?&spQnd^n;ts. tQ^&seertajn^whether quarters V S vacated by the applicants'were-'ever-"t'offered .toother employees in • --n, »*«,. V*l terms of O.M. dated 14.11.2007 which view was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, as enumerated supra, with an additional observation that there was nothing to indicate that such procedure was undertaken after the order was passed by this Tribunal or it was mandatory for the employees to live in Government quarters or that their appointment letters had a compulsory clause requiring them to occupy Government accommodation.
- *• / 10 •* f l r
7. We fail to comprehend how the respondents rejected the claim of the present applicants applying a circular mandating issuance of 'No Accommodation Certificate(NAC)' in order to make one eligible to claim HRA. The speaking order being thus violative of the directions of this Tribunal and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court as enumerated supra, is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authorities to first undertake an exercise in terms of the direction in O.As 873,874,612, 872 and 875 of 2012 and pass appropriate orders keeping nistrat.'\ in view the decision of We Hon'ble High CourtHrf \A^CT.^70/2013 within a period of 3 tXfths fromf'l^^^p^rtrmnication offcjs'Wder.
■.V \ ///V
Jir\* "X % Ilf/ /
C* X\ "
8. Accordingly t^applicatipt^^^dsfd1)f. Ip order^o dost.
I M JB ^ 1
li a*
?■ *** / m ^W/iXvvn. # I|
i . " / \ v\ #■ - -Gi I
I. "
y ____________ __
\ X(BidisHa>Bap(erjefe)
(Dr. Nandita Chatteg>ej^
Administrative Member ^'k y<J u dici a l|M e mb e r
''•fe> -t if Jt
%
\ \
sb \
l.\ "
v% r-
••S.
■^e
V
;