Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
S. Subba Rao vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 7 September, 2007
ORDER Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. Heard Mr.Siva, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.N.R.Devraj, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. This application has been filed seeking for the following relief:
To call for the relevant records related to and connected with Memorandum in F. No. 4(445) Admn/05/374, dated 07/13.02.2006 of the 4th respondent and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(ii) Consequently direct the respondents to release the House Rent Allowance to which the applicant would be entitled to based on the stand of the respondents that they have nothing to do with the liability of the applicant towards paying of rents in respect of the quarters of the 5th respondent in his occupation;
(iii) Also direct that the respondents pay the same together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests from the date on which the same becomes due and payable till the date of actual payment.
3. The applicant joined in respondents' organization in the year 1967. While working there, he was selected and appointed as Statistician in RRS of Indian Research Agricultural Institute (IRAI) under ICAR i.e. the 3rd respondent. The applicant accepted the said post initially on deputation basis. He later on got absorbed under the 3rd respondent w.e.f. 01.04.1980. While the applicant was working as Statistical Officer under the 5th respondent, Type-IV Government Quarters bearing No. 3-6-361/37 belonging to the Directorate of Oilseeds Development Estate, Telhan Bhavan, Hyderabad was allotted to the applicant for use and occupation. He occupied the same on 15.06.1968. The applicant continued to occupy the said quarter allotted to him even after his absorption in ICAR. The applicant vacated the said quarter in June 1990. The applicant retired from service of 4th respondent on and from 31.07.1996 on attaining the age of superannuation.
4. It is the contention of the applicant that when he was appointed in IRAI under the 3rd respondent, he sought permission from the respondents to continue to occupy the quarter on payment of difference of license fee if any under rule 45 (A) of Fundamental Rules and the market value in lieu of the House Rent Allowance payable to him by the 3rd respondent. It is the contention of the applicant that his request was accepted by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 12.10.1973. From the representation of the applicant dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure-III) it can be seen that the difference of market rate of rent was paid by the NRCS to the DOOD for the period from 20.10.1972 to 31.03.1980. But the difference of rent was not paid to the DOOD for th period from 01.04.1980 to 05.06.1990 i.e. from the date of absorption to the date of vacation of quarter by the applicant. As a result of which his HRA was not paid to him till his retirement. Therefore, 5th respondent i.e. DOOD refused to settle the pensionary benefits of the applicant after his retirement and insisted for payment of outstanding dues in respect of the official quarter allotted to him to the sum of Rs.84,636/-. The demand was opposed by the applicant contending that after his absorption with the 3rd respondent w.e.f. 01.04.1980 there was an understanding between the 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent that the applicant would continue to stay in the official quarter allotted by the 3rd respondent and 5th respondent would pay the difference between the market rate rent and the license fee in terms of Fundamental Rule 45 A. Earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA.565/98 and this Tribunal in the said OA has opined that the applicant is not entitled to any relief therein and directed that the applicant shall make arrangements to pay the outstanding standard license fee to enable the respondents to release the gratuity determines in the order impugned in the said OA. The applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. against the said order of the Tribunal in W.P.24436/99, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 12.12.2001. However, the 4th respondent has paid the outstanding standard license fee of Rs.63,815/- to the 5th respondent pursuant to the decision rendered by the A.P.High Court (supra). It is therefore the case of the applicant that, the moment the respondents denied the responsibility to pay the difference in the market rent to the Directorate of Oil Seeds it has no other obligation except to release the HRA as the terms and conditions on which he occupied the said quarter would be an issue between the applicant and the Directorate of Oil Seeds Development. The quarter occupied by the applicant was admittedly not allotted by the ICAR. It makes no difference whether the applicant was residing in a Government quarter or in a private residence and the applicant is therefore entitled to HRA for the period from 01.04.1980 to 05.06.1990. The applicant accordingly submitted his representation to the 4th respondent on 27.10.2005 requesting to pay him House Rent Allowance due to him for the period from 01.04.1980 to 05.06.1990. The said representation is enclosed as Annexure A-III, Pages 11 & 12 to the OA. In reply to the said representation the 4th respondent vide memo dated 7/13.02.2006 informed the applicant that his request has been carefully examined by the competent authority but the same could not be acceded to as per rules. Being aggrieved by the said decision the applicant has approached this Tribunal questioning the memo dated 7/13.02.2006 (supra) issued by the 4th respondent.
5. The respondents have contested the application by filing a counter reply. It is the contention of the respondents that since the applicant was in deputation with ICAR during 1972, Council agreed to bear the difference between market rent and license fee under FR 45-A. The Directorate of Oil Seed Development has cancelled the allotment of Type IV quarter w.e.f. 14.12.1973 and declared his stay as unauthorized and informed the same to the applicant vide memo dated 07.01.1974, a copy which is enclosed as Annexure A-II, page-9 to the reply statement. Accordingly the question of bearing the difference between market rent and license fee by the ICAR does not arise as per provisions of FR 45 A and SR 317 B11 (2) and 22. It is the contention of the respondents that the applicant was asked to vacate the quarter repeatedly by memo dated 08.12.1972, 06.06.1973, 27.11.1973, 11.12.1973 and 07.01.1974, but he has not complied with the orders of the department and unauthorizedly occupied the quarter till 05.06.1990. This Tribunal in OA.565/98 has also opined that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed therein and dismissed the said OA. It is also the case of the respondents that the Council agreed to bear the differential rent as per FR 45 A since the applicant was on deputation. Once he was absorbed in Council's service, the question of bearing the differential rent does not arise. The allotment of the said quarter was cancelled w.e.f. 14.12.1973. It is therefore the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that once the applicant was absorbed and the allotment of quarter occupied by him was cancelled the agreement lost its force; therefore the question of bearing the differential rent does not arise thereafter in regard to the payment of HRA for the period from 01.04.1980 to 05.06.1990. The respondents in page-4 of their reply have stated that as per (4) (a) (i) of HRA Rules, those occupying Government accommodation are not eligible for House Rent Allowance. Copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-X to the reply. Since the applicant was admittedly occupying the quarter beyond the permissible period and even after his absorption in respondents' organization and continued to occupy the quarter till June 1990 the applicant is not entitled for any HRA as per Para (4) (a) (i) of HRA Rules. Therefore, his request has been rejected by the competent authority.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the cancellation order enclosed along with reply has no force for the reason that the said order has not been issued by competent authority. In this context it is required to mention here that the Full Bench of C.A.T. in the case of Ram Poojan v. Union of India has held as under:
No specific order cancelling the allotment of accommodation on expiry of the permissible/permitted period of retention of the quarters on transfer, retirement or otherwise is necessary and further retention of the accommodation by the railway servant would be unauthorised and penal/damage rent can be levied.
7. Be that as it may, in view of the facts narrated above, the fact remains that the applicant paid the amount of Rs.63,815/- to the respondents i.e. amount paid by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent and it is not disputed by the respondents that they have not paid the House Rent Allowance for the period from 01.04.1980 to 05.06.1990 and admittedly the differential rent was paid by the special adjustment by the applicant by paying to the respondents. Now the question falls for consideration as to whether the applicant is entitled for HRA for the period from 01.04.1980 to 05.06.1990 when he was occupying the Government quarter beyond the permissible period after his absorption in respondents' organization.
8. A person can claim certain benefit to which he is entitled. It is due to the failure on the part of the 5th respondent in taking appropriate step to evict the applicant inspite of the cancellation of the allotment of the quarter allotted to him, the applicant continued to stay in the said quarter. Therefore, the fact remains that he continued to stay in a Government quarter beyond the permissible period. That being so, in my opinion, so long a person occupies a Government quarter authorizedly/unauthorizedly he is not entitled to draw HRA from any source. Therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to get the relief prayer for.
9. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.