Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
S B Barik vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 7 April, 2026
1 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016
Reserved on 17.03.2026 Pronounced on 07.04.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Shri Satyabrata Barik, aged about 56 years,
S/o Late Abhimanyu Barik, presently residing
at B/140, Type IBR(HT), sector-6, Rourkela,
Dist - Sundergarh, at present working as
Section Supervisor.
2. Shri Subas Chandra Behera, aged about 55
years, S/o. Late Kandha Behera, presently
residing at A/126, Type IBR(L), Sector-16,
Rourkela, Dist-Sundergarh, Odisha, at present
working as Senior Social Security Assistant.
(Both are working in Office of Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees'
Provident Fund Organisation, Sub- Regional
Office, Rourkela 769004, Dist-Sundergarh,
Odisha.)
...Applicants
VERSUS
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
represented through:
1) Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Head
Quarters, Bhavisyanidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaji
Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.04.07
09:47:49 +05'30'
2 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016
2) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Odisha, Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi
Bhawan, Unit-IX, Janpath, Bhubaneswar-
751022, Dist Khurda, Odisha.
3) Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II,
EPFO, Sub-Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi
Bhawan, Panposh Road, Rourkela- 769004,
Dist- Sundargargh, Odisha
Union of India represented through;
4) Principal Accountant General (Civil) Audit,
Odisha Bhubaneswar-751001, Dist- Khurda,
Odisha.
Steel Authority of India Limited represented
through;
5) Chief Executive Officer, Rourkela Steel Plant,
Rourkela-769011, Dist-Sundergargh, Odisha.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. K.C.Kanungo, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. S.K.Patra, Counsel
Mr. T.K.Patnaik, Counsel
Mr. B.N.Nayak, Counsel
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The case of the applicant Nos. 1 & 2 are that initially they had joined the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 3 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 as Lower Divisional Clerk on 08.03.1983 and 03.10.1986 respectively. Their representation to Dy. General Manager, SAIL, Rourkela for allotment of residential quarter at Steel Town Ship was forwarded by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, EPFO, Rourkela/Resp. No.3 to Dy. General Manager, SAIL, Rourkela. They were allotted quarters at SAIL, RSP, Rourkela on 27.12.2007 and 05.10.2007 and they took the possession on 21.01.2008 and 11.10.2007 respectively. Their grievance is that vide Note dated 06.01.2012 (A/15), the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (ADM) informed the Rourkela Steel Plant Quarters allottees that the Audit Officer/ABA, O/o Principal AG (Civil Audit) Odisha, Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 30.12.2011 has retained para 8 of IR 63/09-10 regarding payment of HRA to them. The Audit Officer/ABA vide letter dated 30.12.2011 [A/15(A)] had intimated as under:
"With reference to your Letter No. SRO/Rourkela/Admn/19/93/Vol III/RSP quarters/1729/ 29.6.11 and subsequent Letter No. 2278/1.12.11, on the subject mentioned above, I am to state that the CAT Jabalpur had clarified vide Order No. 268 of 1998 that the Income Tax employees were allotted quarters directly by Bhillai Steel Plant (BSP) and Income Tax Department had no role in payment of rent etc to the RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 4 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 BSP. The employees were directly connected with the land lord for payment of rent etc and for this government was not directly connected. Further as per the Hon'ble High Court, Patna the quarters allotted to the employees of Central Board of Workers Education by Heavy Engineering Corporation is not treated as a Government organisation and hence court directed the payment of HRA.
But in the instant case, the quarters are placed at the disposal of RPFC Sub Regional Office Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Rourkela for allotment to their employees and the licence fee etc are also recovered from the salary of employees who were allotted with quarters and are being paid to RSP, Rourkela.
As per provisions contained in Rule 5(c)(ii) of HRA CCA-General Rules and Orders of FR & SR, government employees who are provided with residential accommodation by Central Government, Autonomous Bodies etc shall not be eligible for HRA. In view of the above, it was observed that the cases cited by the authorities are found to be not applicable in this case. Hence Para No. 8 of IR 63/09-10 is retained for necessary further persuation.
However, in this regard specific court order for payment of HRA to the employees availing Government accommodation may be obtained."
2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Bench in OA 846/2012 filed by applicants, their representation was considered and disposed of by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Rourkela vide order dated 08.01.2013 [A/20] observing that "the judgement of Hon'ble Patna High Court and Hon'ble CAT, Jabalpur as mentioned above is not applicable in the RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 5 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 instant case. Similarly the referred direction of Head Office is not relevant in the instant case. Accordingly it is held that HRA is not payable to the applicants who are staying in quarters allotted by RSP to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rourkela. As the applicants are not entitled for HRA, the question of payment of arrear HRA w.e.f. 12/2009 does not arise." Subsequently, respondents issued note dated 10.05.2016 [A/21] and letter dated 08.04.2016 [A/22] on the subject of payment of HRA in respect of employees allotted with SAIL (RSP) quarters and communicated that the case of payment of HRA has been re- examined by Head Office and it requires no further consideration at the level of CPFC and, that, further action may be taken to recover the dues as per rules. Being aggrieved, applicants have filed this OA praying to quash Annexure-A/15, A/15(a), A/20, A/21 and A/22 and to direct Resp. No.3 to allow payment of HRA from December, 2009 onwards with arrears and interest thereon.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 6 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016
3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Resp. No.4 filed two separate counters opposing and contesting the case of the applicant. Their main contention is that since the quarters, in question, was allotted in the name of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II, Sub-Regional Office, Rourkela by the SAIL (RSP), Rourkela (a Public Sector Undertaking) and, after taking occupation, the RPFC re-allotted the same to the applicants as per their requests and licence fee and other allied fees are recovered from the salary of the applicants to be paid to RSP, Rourkela, the applicants are not entitled to the HRA. Accordingly, HRA in respect of employees allotted with RSP quarters were not paid w.e.f. 12/2009. Insofar as the order of CAT, Jabalpur Bench in OA 268/1998, it is submitted that in the said case the Income Tax employees were allotted quarters directly by Bhillai Steel Plant (BSP) and were paying rent and Income Tax Department had no role in payment of rent etc to the BSP. With regard to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Patna in CWJ Case No. 87 of 1994 (R) dated 22.03.1995, it is contended that the quarters RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 7 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 were allotted to the employees of Central Board of Workers Education by Heavy Engineering Corporation, which was not treated as a Government organisation and, accordingly, the Hon'ble Court directed the payment of HRA. Respondent No.4 in addition to the above, has stated that it is a field functionary under C&AG of India and has the mandate for auditing the expenditure of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Since the HRA and City Compensatory Allowance-General Rules and orders prohibits for entitlement of HRA, if the officials resides in accommodation allotted by the Central Govt., State Govt., Autonomous Public Sector Undertakings or Semi Govt. Organizations, the payment of HRA to the employees of RPFC, Rourkela was irregular. It is submitted by the respondents that there being no illegality or irregularity in the decision taken by the respondents, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
4. By filing rejoinder, applicants have reiterated their stand that stoppage of HRA at the behest of Audit Report is illegal more so when the CAT, Jabalpur and Hon'ble High Court, Patna already RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 8 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 decided that HRA should be paid to the employees who were not provided accommodation by the government. It is submitted by the applicant that except the allotment order where RPFC has been shown as allottee for namesake only, i.e. for recovery of HRA and other charges and remit the amount to SAIL authority, no other document like any agreement between the SAIL and the RPFC (Resp. No.3), reallotment order/handing over of the possession of the quarters to the applicants by the RPFC has been produced by the respondents rather it is stated that possession of the quarters was directly given to them and in case of change of quarters, representation of the employees routed through Resp. No.3, were entertained by SAIL and, in case of vacation of quarters, documents were signed by the allottee and the SAIL authorities only. For maintenance or otherwise of the quarters also, the applicants have direct link with the SAIL authorities. Hence, it is submitted that there is no direct involvement or link of RPFC. Another point taken by the applicants is that they were paying higher licence fees and water RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 9 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 charges to SAIL than the licence fee and water charges being paid by other employees to RPFC as per central govt. quarters. Accordingly, it is contended that for all purposes, it can be construed that the quarters allotted to them by SAIL(RSP) is from outside agencies having no control by Resp. No.3. Applicant in support of their claim have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of B.H.Amar Venkatesh and others Vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, ILR 2004 KAR 1600.
5. Heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
6. The moot point to the decided in this OA is as to whether the quarters allotted to the applicants by the SAIL (RSP) can be taken as the government accommodation provided by the RPFC. After going though the records, we find that RPFC, Orissa vide letter dated 15.05.2008 (A/10) has already requested the EPFO, Sub-Regional Office, Rourkela for payment of HRA to one Sri N.K.Prasad, as per the clarification issued by the H.O. vide letter RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 10 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 dated 09.01.2008. Further, the EPFO, Govt. of India, Head Quarters, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.07.2008 (A/13) taking note of the judgements of Patna High Court and CAT, Jabalpur Bench, decided that HRA is payable to officers who have been offered accommodation by a private party/organization that has been requested officially. Here, in this case, as is clearly evident, the applicants represented Dy. General Manager, SAIL, RSP for allotment of residential quarters at Steel Town Ship, SAIL, RSP, Rourkala. The RPFC forwarded their representations and, consequently, quarters were allotted in the name of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Sub-Regional Office, Rourkela with further condition that the allotee is to occupy the quarters within 7 days and is liable to pay rent and other allied charges as admissible etc. No agreement/document has been produced by the respondents that the RPFC first took the possession and there after reallotted the quarters to the applicants. The RPFC only being a model employer, deducted the HRA and other charges from the salary of the applicants and transferred to SAIL RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 11 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 authorities, which cannot be said that the quarters were actually provided by the RPFC.
7. Add to above, it is also to be noted that OA No. 349/2024 was filed by one Sri Durga Madhab Padhi, who was working as a Health Educator in a Research Project titled Integrated Disease Vector Control Project and was in occupation of accommodation provided by the Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and drew HRA from ICMR, challenging withholding of Rs. 5,67,233/- from his DCRG on the ground of residing in an accommodation owned and provided by the SAIL at Rourkela and simultaneously drawing of HRA. This Bench, took note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 19.02.2004 in W.Ps. No. 31014-31023 of 2023 (S-CAT) [B H AMAR Venkatesh & Ors (supra)], also relied on by the present applicant in the instant OA, wherein in similar situation, it was held that an employee is entitled to HRA in the event quarters is not allotted under the Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules and in the event allotment of quarters under the above rules, the employee is liable to pay RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 12 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 License Fee in accordance with SR-317-B-12(1). What shall be License Fee of the quarters has to be determined as per annexure-I appended to FR 45(A). In the case, the applicant was paying the rent and other allied charges as per the agreement executed with the SAIL. This Bench vide order dated 21.01.2026 allowed the OA and directed refund of the withheld amount.
8. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the respondents the accommodation provided by the SAIL(RSP) was General Pool accommodation and the allotment of quarters was made under Allotment of Govt. Residences (General Pool) Rules. Rather, the record depicts that the quarters were although allotted in the name of RPFC but on the specific request and application of the applicants and for their accommodation only. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to consider SAIL (RSP) quarters, allotted to the applicants, as owned by the Government. In the facts and law stated above, the action of the respondents in stopping the HRA of the applicants is held to be improper. Consequently, the letters under Annexure-A/15, RAVI KUMAR 2026.04.07 09:47:49 +05'30' 13 O.A.No. 260/00689 of 2016 A/15(a), A/20, A/21 and A/22, in respect of the applicants, are hereby quashed, consequently, Resp. No.3 is directed to make payment of HRA to the applicants from December, 2009 onwards within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, applicants shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrear payment.
9. In the result, this OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.04.07
09:47:49 +05'30'