Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Velammal Selvi vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 18 April, 2023
0.A.00315/2019
8 4
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAT BENCH
OA/310/00315/2019
Dated Tuesday the 18" day of April Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
Velammal @ Selvi,
W/o.Kannan,
4/41, Velavar Colony Fourth Street,
Maharaja Nagar
Tirunelveli-11,
Tirunelveli District. wees Applicant
By Advocate M/s.V,Kannan
Vs
1. The Accounts Officer (Drawal)
O/9,.General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Tirunelveli--3,
Tirunelvell District,
2, The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Tirunelveli-3,
Tirunelveli District. sane Respondents
By Advocate Mr.M.S.Velusamy
0.4.00315/2019
{
2
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
a. to cail forthe records in pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent under No.Na,AO (D)/P & T Audit/2018-2019 dated 14.09.2018 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the applicant im pursuant to the sald Proceedings,
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:
The applicant was posted as Group D in the office of the respondent No.2 on compassionate ground after death of her husband, The applicant married another Group D employee namely Kannan. Since her parents and mother In law were not in Support of the inter caste re-marriage, the applicant was living separately where as the new husband lived in the staff quarters. The first respondent issued a letter dated 14.09.2018 saying that one BSNL, staff quarter has been allotted in the name of Kannan ATT (139) and so House Rent Allowance paid to the applicant from May 2015 to August 2018 worked out at Rs.55,149/-will be recovered from her pay and ailowances in addition to stoppage of House Rent Allowance from September 2018 till MrKannan ATT Js in occupation of staff quarters. Therefcre; the applicant has submitted representation to cancel the said recovery however, the same has been rejected by the respondent authorities. Being aggrieved the applicant filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief,
3. After notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsels and filed a detailed reply and contended that on perusal of the family particulars, it reveaté that the said applicant has been residing with her husband Mr. Kannan in the said Government Telecom Quarters and as per the relevant rules and conditions if any of the spouse has availed the Specific quarters in the same station, the other spouse is De ress alee rhe a O.A.No.315 of 2019 3 not entitled for House Rent Allowances (HRA). The applicant has availed HRA while fiving in the said quarters also her husband is not ertitied to separate House Rent Allowances.
4. It is further contended that by mistakenly, which is neither wilful nor wanton, the respondent allowed her to draw House Rent Allowance. separately. The. above said mistakes or error was pointed out by the Audit Wing of the P & T Audit and in view of the Audit Objection the sald amount after following the procedures established under rule and after giving reasonable opportunity passed the order of the recovery and the said amount was being recovered by way of instalment of Rs.2,000/- per month and the recovery had already been started therefore, the respondent has contended that according te the rule 5 (c) the applicant is not entitled to draw House Rent Allowances, hence prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits. 5 Heard Learned Counsel Advocate M/s.V.Kannan fer applicant and Learned Counsel Mr.M.S.Velusamy for respondent. The applicant has filed notes of arguments. Perused the records and relevant documents.
6. It is to be noted that according to the Rule 5 conditions for drawal of House Rent Allowance under Rule 5.1 A Government servant shall not be entitled to House Rent Allowance, if his wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government and an Autonomous Public Undertaking or Semi-Government Organisation, such as Municipality, Port Trust etc., Whether he/she resides in that accommodation of he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her".
7. it is to be noted that In support of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent has relied upon order dated 17.12.2008 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of O.A.N0,315 of 2019 4 this Tribunal at Hyderabad in 0.A,No.1292 of 2004 in the matter of R.Ravi Prakash Vs. Union of india which reads thus:-
Point No.i.
Central Government framed rules imposing. conditions for drawal of HRA under Rule 5 (C) Government servant shall not be entitled for HRA {i} if he shares Govérnment accommodation allotted rent free to another Government servant or (li) he/she resides in accommodation allotted to his/her parents/son/daughter by the Central Government, State Government, an Autonomous Public Undertaking or serni- government organisation such as Municipality, Port Trust, Nationalised Banks,Life Insurance Corporation of India, etc (iil) His wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central! Government, State Government, an Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi- Government Organisation such as Municipality, Port Trust; etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her. Under the same rule the word' Same Station' is defined, according to which the places which are treated as contiguous to the qualified city/town and also those places which are included in the Urban Agglomeration of a qualified city. The Government has got every right to impose conditions for drawal of HRA. We do not find any irregularity or illegality in imposing such conditions for drawal of HRA, The applicant relied on the clarification given In G.1.M.F0.M dated 08.11.1988 wherein it is clarified that in cases where both husband and wife are living together in hired/own accornmodation both the Government servants. are entitled to draw HRA. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that when both Government servants are entitled to draw HRA even if they are living together in the hired/own accommodation, there is no rationale behind the restriction of drawal of HRA even if the husband and wife are living separately in the same city. We are unable to. accept with this contention of learned counsel for the applicant because the said clarification relates to the employees who are not provided government accommadation. Generally the HRA may not be equivalent to the actual rent that is required to be paid by the Government servants, Entire HRA is not being reimbursed by the Government and only a percentage of basic salary is being paid as HRA for thase who are not provided with the Government accommodation. in cases where the Government accommodation fs provided the question of paying HRA by the employer does not arise. So in a case where one of the spouses are provided with Government accommodation the Government has prescribed condition to the effect that the other sponse even if living separately is not entitled to claim HRA. Therefore, we do not find any legality or violation of any fundamental rights of the - tat employees. Hence, we are unable to find that Rule 5 (C) (iii) isn violation
8. O.A,No.3i5 of 2019 5 .
of any rule or article of Constitution warranting quashing of the rule. Thus, the point.is found against the applicant. Points (ii & fli):
It Is not disputed that the respondents in the impugned order ordered recovery of HRA only for the periods during which the applicant was posted within the Urban Agglomeration of the Hyderabad city and not for the period during which the applicant was posted outside the city. Therefore, even if the version of the applicant that he lived in a hired accommodation near to the places of his work is accepted, he is not entitled to draw HRA as per rule 5 (C)(ili) of the rules relating to the drawal of HRA. Nothing prevented the applicant to reside in the official accommodation given to his wife. If the applicant did not reside in the accommodation provided to his wife it was at his will and pleasure and such separate living in a rented house does not entitle him to claim HRA as his spouse has already been provided Government accommodation and hereby enabled the husband and wife to live together. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondents to order recovery of the HRA drawn unauthorisedly. Therefore, both the points are found against the applicant.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to difference of opinion between the family members, the applicant is not residing with the second husband Mr.Kannan in the said Government quarter and she is residing with her family separately.
9.
It is to be noted that to order the recovery of the House Rent Allowances drawn unauthorisedly by the applicant, there is no violation of the any rule in respect of recovery of HRA and I do not find any illegality of irregularity in the action of the respondents,
10. Inthe result, the OA-is dismissed. No orders as to cost. eerie ae onion
-- =