Jharkhand High Court
Braj Mohan Prasad Singh vs Bihar State Housing Board And Ors. ... on 10 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2004(1)JCR56(JHR)], 2004 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 1118, (2004) 1 JCR 56 (JHA) (2004) 1 JLJR 141, (2004) 1 JLJR 141
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
1. These two writ petitions are taken up together and being disposed of by this common judgment, as common questions are involved in these cases.
2. The only question is as to whether the petitioners, who have been allotted staff quarters, are centitled to receive the House Rent Allowance (H.R.A. for short) or not.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners were allotted the premises as 'staff quarters' on a nominal rent. The standard rent was much higher i.e. about 7 times more than the rent to be paid for occupying such staff quarters.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several documents and submitted that as per the relevant rules they are also entitled to receive the H.R.A. But I find on going through those documents that those relate to the 'rental premises'. The nominal amount charged against occupation of a staff quarter is also called 'rent'. In that context, the documents relied on by the petitioners show that those rental premises are not the Government premises and, therefore, the persons occupying those rental premises are entitled to get H.R.A. The word 'allotment' is used while allotting a 'staff quarter' as well while allotting rental premises on standard rent. Thus, the documents relied on by the petitioners clearly show that the .employees who have been allotted 'rental premises' on a standard rent will also be entitled for H.R.A. It further appears that some employees who were allotted staff quarters at Ranchi and Jamshedpur were wrongly paid the H.R.A. Therefore, an order was passed for recovery of the same in installments. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3240 of 1994 (R) has been allotted the staff quarter in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 44.65 paise in the year 1987. In C.W.J.C. No. 1088 of 1995 (R), there are 19 petitioners. Some of them have been allotted flat/quarters on a monthly rental of Rs. 24.15 paise, and some were allotted staff quarters on a monthly rent of Rs. 16.17 paise.
5. In CWJC No. 3240 of 1994 (R), on 14.12.1994 it was ordered that till disposal of the writ petition no deduction of the arrears claimed by the Board from the petitioner by way of Housing Allowance paid to him shall be made, but so far as the future is concerned petitioner will not be paid H.R.A. It is now known for what reason similar interim order was not passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1088 of 1995 (R). However, learned counsel for the Board submitted that a part of the amounts wrongly paid as H.R.A., has been recovered from the petitioners in both the cases.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that some of the similarly situated Government employees have been paid H.R.A. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that if any illegality has been done/Is being done, that cannot be a ground to grant relief to the petitioners. I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the Board that this Court ,cannot allow an illegality to perpetuate. It is for the Government/Department/other authority to see that illegality is not permitted.
7. Petitioners have admitted that the staff who are occupying the staff quarters are not getting H.R.A. but the rental quarter occupied by the petitioners have not been declared by the Board as staff quarter and as such petitioners are entitled to get H.R.A. Replying to this, learned counsel for the Board drew my attention to the materials on record which clearly shows that the premises were allotted to the petitioners as 'staff quarters'.
8. Learned counsel for the Board also drew my attention to the affidavits and documents to show that sixty six premises have been earmarked as staff quarters for the employees of the Board which have been allotted to them and as such no H.R.A. is being paid to them.
9. The arguments advance on behalf of the petitioners that there are orders/resolutions of the Housing Board supporting the contentions of the petitioners, but the same have been given a goby by the Secretary of the Board, is also not acceptable, inasmuch as, the said resolution of the Board and the other orders of the Secretary are not contradictory rather they are in the-same line.
10. After considering the entire facts and circumstance and the materials available on record, I hold that the petitioners who were provided accommodation as 'staff quarters' on nominal rent, were not entitled to get H.R.A. also.
11. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim stay stands vacated. There is no order as to costs.