Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Miss Kiran Lata vs Jnv & Ors. Through on 15 September, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.1092/2010 New Delhi, this the 15th day of September, 2010 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Miss Kiran Lata JNV, Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi-73. . Applicant.
(By Advocate : Shri M. K. Bhardwaj) Versus JNV & Ors. through
1. The Chairman Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Secretary Ministry of HRD, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
4. The Assistant Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti A-28, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
5. Principal J. N. V. Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi. . Respondents.
(By Advocate : Shri S. Rajappa) : O R D E R (ORAL) :
Miss Kiran Lata, the Applicant herein, on appointment to the post of LDC, vide letter dated 14.05.2005 to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV in short), Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi, she joined the said post on 20.05.2005; when the Respondents allotted her residential accommodation i.e. Quarter No.24 in the JNV Campus. She accepted the said allotment on 20.5.2005 (Page-39). The Respondents averred that she wrote a letter dated 20.5.2005 (Page 40) on her own accord stating that she would reside at a place outside the JNV Campus and would not claim House Rent Allowance and Transport Allowance and she would bear the cost of staying outside the Campus. The Applicants such request was rejected by the Respondents. She completed her probation in the year 2008 and applied on 3.11.2008 (Page-41) for grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA). A different letter was sent by the Applicant by Registered Post vide letter dated 4.11.2008 (Annexure A-3). It is the case of the Applicant that instead of sanctioning HRA to her they kept her proposal pending and on the other hand, similarly placed employee was permitted to stay outside the JNV Campus and granted HRA without raising any objections. Applicant, therefore, submitted to Respondent No.3 one representation dated 6.01.2009 (Annexure A-4) wherein she stated that she was not allotted any accommodation and stated her inability to stay in the Campus of the Vidyalaya and she would like to stay in her own residence and attend the duties in time. It is further stated by the Applicant that Respondent No.4 wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) stating therein that there was no available accommodation in Vidyalaya and it was also clarified that the Applicant has demanded for release of HRA. The copy of the said letter of Respondent No.4 dated 25.06.2009 is at Annexure A-5. In this context, the Assistant Commissioner (Personnel) sent an advisory letter to the Principal of JNV which is at Annexure A-6, wherein it was inter alia directed to issue orders to staff to shift to the quarter in the Campus, as there were 5 quarters vacant and the claim for HRA was not permissible. It was also directed that the unauthorized payment of HRA to the Applicant must be stopped. She filed one more letter dated 18.08.2009 (Page-26) to Deputy Commissioner, NVS demanding for sanction and release of HRA to the Applicant. She followed it up with a reminder dated 31.08.2009. She was informed by the Assistant Commissioner (Personnel) vide his letter dated 16.9.2009 (Page-42) that she was not entitled to both HRA and Transport Allowance. Further, vide letter dated 17.02.2010 (Page-17) the Respondents rejected the claim of the Applicant by stating that the Applicant was not entitled for HRA as she was residing outside the Campus without permission of the competent authority and the HRA paid to her should be recovered. Against the said letter, she submitted one more representation dated 13.03.2010 (Annexure A-8). Consequently, it is the case of the Applicant that the Respondents instead of releasing HRA to the Applicant issued the letter dated 15.03.2010 (Page 18) directing her to shift to the quarter allotted to her within a week and the water, electricity and license fees would be deducted from the salary for the month of March, 2010. Moreover, the Respondents also served a letter dated 10.03.2010, wherein her request for the HRA was rejected.
2. Finding no other alternative and impugning the said orders of the Respondents, the Applicant is visiting this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs :-
(i) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2010, 10.03.2010 and 15.03.2010.
(ii) to direct the respondents to release HRA to the applicant from the date of appointment dated 20.05.2005 with all arrears.
(iii) to declare the action of the respondents in forcing the applicant to reside in the Vidyalaya Campus at the cost of her life as illegal.
(iv) to pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Honble High Court deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) to allow the OA with exemplary cost.
3. Shri M. K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant has been staying in her own house at RZ-81, Main Sagarpur, Street-1, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and has informed the competent authority that she would not need accommodation within the Campus of JNV. She has also requested that HRA should be sanctioned and released to her. Further, it is stated that she being LDC, a non teaching staff, the need for her presence within the Campus is not relevant. He submits that there are some eligible claimants seeking accommodation within the campus. Therefore, the quarter allotted to the Applicant could be properly utilized for other employees who need the quarter. Another contention raised is on medical grounds. She has been suffering from Kidney disease for which she has to take regular treatment at the Hospital, which is 3 Kms away from her house. Therefore, Shri Bhardwaj contends that if she stays at Vidyalaya Campus it would not be possible for her to get proper and regular medical treatment. Further, refuting the contention that the Applicant has been allotted a quarter, it was stated that only w.e.f. 15.03.2010, the Respondents have started deducting water, electricity and license fee, whereas the Applicant has submitted his request letter dated 4.11.2008 to pay her HRA. Shr Bhardwaj also submits that similarly placed non teaching staff are also getting HRA who are staying outside the JNV campus. Non sanction of HRA to the Applicant should, therefore, be treated as discriminatory. Hence, the invidious discriminatory action on the part of the Respondents is liable to be negated by appropriate order. Citing HRA Rule from the FRSR (Volume V), he submits that Rules permit that the government employee to stay in their own houses and claim HRA. Therefore, the Applicants case is well covered under the provision in FRSR and should be sanctioned HRA by the Respondents.
4. On the other hand, Shri S. Rajappa, learned Counsel for the Respondents, very strongly opposed the contentions raised by Shri Bhardwaj and informed that Quarter No.24 was allotted to the Applicant as far back as on 20.05.2005 (Page 30). She has not declined to stay in the said quarter but on the other hand, she has noted on the letter dated 20.05.2005 about the allocation of the Quarter NO.24 for her. Shri Rajappa submits that JNV is a residential school and quarters are earmarked for various types and categories of employees of JNV. Further, on a query from the Bench, he clarified that the Quarter No.24 was allotted and was in possession of the Applicant. The said quarter has not yet been allotted to anyone as she has not surrendered the same to the JNV Management. He produced a copy of the Circular dated 6.6.1995 to indicate that out of 42 staff quarters constructed in the JNV, 2 staff quarters are earmarked for LDCs. The Applicant being LDC had been allotted Quarter No.24 and she was duty bound to stay there. On the other hand, she left the campus and stayed in her own house. Further, he drew my attention to the letter written by the Applicant dated 3.11.2008 to the Deputy Commissioner, NVS which states to permit her to live at her permanent residence along with her sick and aged mother and as soon as she gets the permission, she would like to hand over the quarter to Vidyalaya soon. The said letter, in Shri Rajappas view conveys that even in November, 2008, the Quarter No.24 has been in her possession. She submits that it is not the issue whether she stays in the said quarter or not or commutes from her own house to JNV or not but the fact remains, admittedly, the Applicant is in possession of Quarter No.24. In the above background, Shri Rajappa submits that there is no merit in the case of the Applicant to get HRA and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having heard the rival contentions, I perused the pleadings. The only issue for my determination is whether the Applicant is entitled to get HRA?
6. It is admitted fact that the Applicant joined JNV as LDC on 14.05.2005. On 20.05.2005 she has taken note of the allocation of Quarter No.24 in JNV Campus earmarked for the LDC. Though there is some statement to say that she has applied to stay outside the campus but there is no documentary evidence to show that she has surrendered her quarter in order to stay outside the campus from the date of her joining till 3.11.2008. On 3.11.2008, she has given a letter, copy of which is at Page 41, which reads as follows :-
With due respect and reference to the subject cited above, I joined NV, Jaggar Pur Kalan on 20.05.2005 as a LDC. As I joined my duties and I had been allotted a staff quarter w.e.f. 20.05.2005.
My aged widow mother is not feeling well. Her regular treatment is going on at AIIMS. There is no other family member to look after her and AIIMS is quite near to my permanent residence. Due to the sickness of my mother, I am unable to stay in the Vidyalaya Campus.
It is, therefore, requested to kindly permit me to live at my permanent residence along with my sick mother and be allowed to get HRA. I will hand over my quarter to Vidyalaya sooner. I get the permission for living along with my sick mother. I will be highly grateful to you for this act of kindness. (Emphasis added).
7. It is, therefore, evident from the said letter that the quarter was still in possession of the Applicant. Thus, she would not, therefore, be entitled to get any HRA from 20.05.2005 to 3.11.2008, as admittedly, the quarter was in possession of the Applicant during the said period.
8. The next issue arises is what is her position beyond 4.11.2008?
9. It is apt for me to note that on 4.11.2008 the Applicant has submitted her application to stay outside the campus in her own residence, which has been rejected by the competent authority. It is seen that the Applicants request to stay outside the Campus of the School has been considered by the Respondents more than once and have rejected the same. On a question put from the Bench, I was informed by the Counsel for the Respondents that there are no demands for the Quarter No.24 from any other employee of the JNV and the Quarter NO.24 is still in the custody of the Applicant. Shri Rajappa also submitted that the quarters are earmarked and the types are as per the normal accommodation norms of the Government. As such, those cannot be allotted to other employees of the School. Further it was stated the Applicant was being illegally paid HRA. The same has been directed by the Assistant Commissioner (Personnel) of NVS to be recovered from her. In this background, it is clear that the Applicant has not surrendered the Quarter No.24 to the Respondents.
10. On the one side, she is staying with her mother in her house away from the Campus and on the other side, the Quarter No.24 is still under her occupation. This is an anomalous situation, which she has chosen herself to have the quarter with her and stay in her own house. In such a circumstance there is no provision under the Rules to pay her HRA when she has been already allotted a quarter and she has accepted the same as per the records. Moreover, she willingly informed to stay outside the campus and would not claim HRA and transport allowance.
11. During the arguments, Counsel for the Applicant referred to FRSR Part-V dealing with HRA and CCA published in Swamys Compilation (18th Edition- 2004) which indicates how the matters to be treated in the Government for those occupying or refusing government accommodation and not eligible for HRA. It has prescribed exhaustive guidelines for the competent authorities to follow in case of the government employees, where Director of Estates makes allocation under the General Pool accommodation. The present case is not covered under the said guidelines as the quarters are not under the control of Director of Estates. On the contrary, the quarters are part and parcel of the Navodaya Vidyalaya which is a residential school. Therefore, Shri Bhardwajs reliance on the said FRSR provision would not be applicable at all for the present case. Even if we go by the guidelines of the FRSR relied on by the Counsel for Applicant, it is well neigh evident that the Applicant cannot have the quarter and simultaneously claim the HRA. It is trite in law that if the earmarked quarter remains vacant, the employee concerned is not entitled to get HRA.
12. One more contention that was brought up before me by the Counsel for the Applicant relates to the Applicants aged sick mother and Applicants own illness/sickness as a ground to claim HRA. From the pleadings it is seen that the Applicant has enclosed a letter addressed to Dr. Dinesh Mittal, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, dated 13.03.2010 seeking his intervention to request him to say that her treatment needs her to stay outside the Vidyalaya Campus. She has stated in the said letter that the Vidyalaya Campus is 50 Kilometers away from her own residence whereas Agrasen Hospital where she is stated to be undergoing some treatment i.e. twice a week for Dialysis purpose, is 3 Kms away. There is no letter or any certificate of the medical authority in the pleadings to find out whether her medical condition requires her to stay outside the Campus and for what reasons. Though, the Applicant has been claiming her illness and her sickly aged mother as the ground to stay in her own residence outside the school campus, the fact is that the accommodation available in the JNV Campus provides her the shortest possible distance to attend to her official duties in the JNV. If medical treatment has to be undertaken either at AIIMS or at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, she could do so as and when the same may be required right from the JNV Campus. On the other hand, for attending to her official duties, she has to commutes 50 kilometers distance from her house to the JNV Campus and back. This would mean 100 Kms daily on working days. This is not a logical/ sound proposition. As such, I do not find any rationality of medical grounds to come to her aid for HRA claim by the Applicant.
13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and my discussion on the contentions raised by the Counsel for Applicant, I come to the considered conclusion that she has not made out a case in her support. Thus, findings no merits in the case for claim of HRA by the Applicant, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) Member (A) /pj/