Jharkhand High Court
Poonam Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 2145 of 2018
Poonam Singh, aged about 45 years, wife of Arjun Singh, resident of
E-465, Block-A, Sonari (East) P.O. and P.S.- Sonari, Town-
Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East, (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, School Education
and Literacy Department, having its office at Project Building
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
2. The Director, School Education & Literacy Department,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Singhbhum East at
Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.-Sakchi, District-East Singhbhum
4. The Area Education Officer, Jamshedpur, P.O. and P.S.-Sakchi,
District-East Singhbhum
5. The Principal, Bharthi Middle School, Kadma, P.O. and P.S.-
Kadma, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
: Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate
---
06/16.08.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For issuance of appropriate direction upon the respondent authorities to pay the admissible House Rent Allowance ('HRA' in short) to the petitioner w.e.f. October, 2007 and release the same with consequential arrears. "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the case of the petitioner, both the petitioner and her husband are school teachers at Jamshedpur both under the state government. He submits that they are living in their own accommodation. The husband is getting the house rent allowance but the petitioner is not getting the same. The learned counsel has submitted that in spite of repeated representation, the same has not been made available to the petitioner. He submits that various representations were filed before the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur including last representation on 16.12.2017 but the grievance of the petitioner has not been redressed.
24. The learned counsel has referred to Annexure-5 which is a judgment dated 07.09.2016 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5235 of 2015 to submit that in the said case, the husband was a central government employee and the wife was a state government employee and they were living in their own accommodation and this court held that there was no provision to show that when both the spouses are government servant and they are living together in their own house and one of the spouses is getting the house rent allowance, the other shall not be entitled for the same. He submits that in such circumstances appropriate direction was issued to make payment of admissible HRA. He submits that the rules which was under consideration in the said judgment was HRA Rules of 1980 annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel submits that co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P. (S) No. 2742 of 2013 has considered the case of both the spouses working under the state government and in the said case, the HRA was refused by order passed by District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, which was under challenge and ultimately after considering the aforesaid judgment passed by this court in W.P. (S) No. 5235 of 2015 (Nirupma Chaudhary versus State of Jharkhand), the writ petition was disposed of in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned counsel submits that in the present case, no decision as such has been taken by the respondents so far with regards to the claim of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that no counter affidavit as such has been filed in the present case, therefore foundational facts are required to be verified and matter can be considered by the respondents in the light of the judgment being relied upon by the petitioner and any other judgment or circular which the authority may find applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that apparently the petitioner had filed repeated representations before the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, claiming HRA, but no decision as such was 3 taken either rejecting or allowing the claim of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the husband is getting the HRA and they are living in their own accommodation. The matter/claim at the first instance should be looked into by the respondent No. 2.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of enabling the petitioner to file a detailed representation along with the writ records and a copy of the aforesaid judgments before the respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from today. Upon filing of such representation, the respondent No. 2 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or her authorized representative and shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two months thereafter. The respondent No. 2 while taking a decision may call for a report from the District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. It will be open to the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate order in accordance with law taking into consideration the judgments which may be relied upon by the petitioner and also any of the judgment which may be found applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration various applicable circulars, decision of the state government etc.
9. The reasoned order should also be communicated to the petitioner through speed post at the address which may be provided by the petitioner in the representation itself. If the petitioner is found entitled to HRA, the respondent No. 2 shall take appropriate steps so that the admissible amount is remitted to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the reasoned order.
10. It is made clear that if a decision has already been taken with regard to the claim of the petitioner, a copy of the decision be communicated to the petitioner and no fresh order need be passed.
11. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
12. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit