Jharkhand High Court
Sunita Sharma Wife Of Nawal Kishore ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 13 September, 2018
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.4273 of 2011
Sunita Sharma Wife of Nawal Kishore Sharma, resident of Nunoodih,
Pathardih, P.O. Pathardih, P.S. Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal
House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Ranchi.
3. The Director, Primary Education, H.E.C. Campus, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
District-Ranchi.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad.
5. The Headmaster-cum-Drawing & Disbursing Authority, Adarsh Hindi
Balika Madhya Vidyalaya, Purana Bazar, P.O. & District-Dhanbad.
....... Respondents
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddarth Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arup Kr. Dey, A.C to G.P.I
---
07/13.09.2018 In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has sought for
quashing the order dated 22.04.2011 passed by the respondent no.5 whereby the Headmistress of the school was directed for payment of salary of the petitioner after deducting the house rent allowance.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that, admittedly, the petitioner and her husband were employed in the Government services. While continuing on such post, the petitioner has been asked to submit her salary bill after deducting House Rent Allowance. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the then Headmistress of the school for payment of salary after deduction of HRA, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondent-authority for redressal of her grievance by Rule 8(8) of the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980. Due to non-payment of HRA by the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner in similar circumstances has challenged in C.W.J.C No.1903 of 1993(R) and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22.08.1996 relying upon the decision as reported in 1995 (2) P.L.J.R 1080 in the case of Smt. Abla Biswas @ Smt. Abla Bose Vs. State of Bihar and Others and in the case of Awdhesh Kumari Verma and another in C.W.J.C No.1298 of 1994 (R) has been pleased to hold that the spouses being the employees of the State Government sharing accommodation are entitled to House Rent Allowance. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has by referring to another decision reported in C.W.J.C No.1409 of 1993(R) (Subash Chandra Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others) submits that the similar order has been passed placing the decision in Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and Others. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has referred to decision in W.P.(S) No.5235 of 2015 (Nirupma Chaudhary Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Others) wherein the Hon'ble Court by referring to the aforesaid decision and taking note of Rule 6
(x) of HRA Rules, 1980 has been pleased to hold that the petitioner and her husband are entitled to the house rent allowances. Accordingly, direction was issued for payment of arrears of admissible HRA, together with the current admissible HRA to the petitioner within the stipulated period.
4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter- affidavit has been filed by respondents. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that in paragraph-10 of the counter-affidavit, Rule 6(b)(ii) has been referred to which provides for withdrawal of HRA, which reads as under:-
"As an exception of the above rule, in cases where a Government servant who shares his/her accommodation with his wife/husband/parent/son/daughter/unmarried sister, who is also an employee of Central Government/State Government/Autonomous Public Undertaking/Semi-Government Organization etc., he/she Government Servant may be allowed to the option to draw HRA. Without a reduction of 40% from the rent actually paid by him/her, subject to the condition that the other spouse/parent/son/daughter does not draw any house rent allowance."
It has further been submitted that from the above quoted Rule, it is clear that only one person either husband or wife, residing in same accommodation, is entitled to get house rent allowance.
5. Supplementary counter-affidavit dated 13.08.2018 has also been filed by the respondent nos. 4, wherein it has been submitted that L.P.A No.125 of 2017 has been filed by the State Government and the same is still pending.
6. In pursuance to order dated 23.08.2018, show-cause affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.4 wherein it has been submitted that L.P.A. No.125 of 2017 was dismissed for default. C.M.P No.70 of 2018 has been filed on behalf of the State/Department and the same is still pending before this Hon'ble Court.
7. Learned counsel for the State by referring to the counter-affidavit has canvassed his argument on the basis of the counter-affidavit by submitting that instead of compliance of rule, the State Government took a decision that spouse while being posted in one place, only one of them will be entitled to get house rent allowance as per the definition of the Family given in Rule 6(b)(ii). Learned counsel for the State however does not dispute the ratio laid down in the legal propositions held in preceding paragraphs.
8. After having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the documents on records, I have going through the ratio laid down by the decision as reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 1080 (Abala Biswas @ Smt. Abla Vs. State of Bihar And Others) and decision in C.W.J.C No.1409 of 1993(R) (Subash Chandra Singh Vs. State of Bihar and Others) and also the decision in W.P.(S) No.5235 of 2015 dated 07.09.2016.
9. On perusal of aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered view that the said decisions are squarely applicable to the instant case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order vide Annexure-5 being not legally sustainable is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to make the payment of arrears of admissible HRA together with the current admissible HRA to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/communication of copy of this order.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) RKM