Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 9 May, 2012
1
W.P.(S) No.780/2005
Narendra Singh Thakur The State of M.P. & others
9.5.2012
Shri Abhilash Dey, Counsel for petitioner.
Smt.Indira Nair, learned Sr. Advocate with Shri K.Rohan,
Counsel for respondent.
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 27.9.2004
Annexure P/1 by which the prayer of the petitioner for grant of
House-Rent Allowance was turned down by the respondents.
Facts of the case are:-
(a) That the petitioner was appointed on 28.1.1984 as Attendant Grade-III. Thereafter, he was promoted on 3.5.1989 as Attendant Grade-II. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a Government quarter on 5.5.1995, but no quarter was allotted to him. Petitioner had made several representations for allotment of a quarter, but such allotment was not made to the petitioner.
(b) Petitioner in the year 1996 moved an application to the respondents seeking permission of the department for purchase of a newly constructed house. The department accorded permission to the petitioner for purchase of a newly constructed house and thereafter petitioner had also obtained house loan for the purchase of the house after seeking permission of the respondents and had purchased a house.
(c) That, on 15.12.2001 vide Annexure P/2, petitioner was allotted an accommodation by the respondents. Petitioner then preferred a representation to the respondents that he was residing in his own house which he had purchased after obtaining due permission of the respondents and was entitled for the house rent allowance. This was turned down on the ground that the petitioner had refused to accept allotment of house, so he was not entitled for House Rent Allowance. This order is under challenge in this petition.
Learned counsel for respondents has drawn my attention to Clause (11) of the Order of the Board Annexure R/1 dated 17.1.1990 and submitted that if an employee has refused to accept the 2 W.P.(S) No.780/2005 Narendra Singh Thakur The State of M.P. & others 9.5.2012 allotment of house, he was not entitled for house rent allowance. On this ground, petitioner was rightly denied House Rent Allowance. Reliance is also placed to Annexure R/3 in support of the contention.
For ready reference, Clause (11) of the Order of the Board Annexure R/1 dated 17.1.1990 and relevant portion of Annexure R/3 are referred, which read as under:-
"11 tks eaMy ds vkoklx`gksa eas gS vFkok muesa jgus ls badkj djrs gSa os edku fdjk;k HkRrs ds ik= ugha gksxas& fuEu 'krksZs ds varxZr edku fdjk;k HkRrk Lohd`r fd;k tkosxk%& v(i)eaMy ds vkokl x`gksa dh ik=rk j[kus okys eaMy ds ,sls deZpkjh ftUgksaus fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k] ;fn dksbZ gS] ds vuqlkj eaMy ds vkokl gsrq vkosnu fd;k gks vkSj mUgsa vkokl miyC/k ugha fd;k x;k gks] os edku fdjk;k HkRrk ds ik= gksaxsA
(ii)eaMy ds tks deZpkjh eaMy ds vkoklx`g dk vkoaVu Lohdkj djrs gsa mudk edku fdjk;k HkRrk] vkoklkx`g dk dCtk izkIr djus vFkok eaMy ds vkoklx`g ds vkoaVu dh frfFk dks NksM+dj vkBosa fnu ls] tks Hkh igys gks] cUn dj fn;k tkosxkA eaMy ds vkoklx`g ds vkoaVu dks vLohdkj djus dh fLFkfr esa] vkoaVu dh frfFk ls edku fdjk;k HkRrk dh xzkgrk lekIr gks tkosxhA eaMy ds vkoklx`g dks okfil lkSai nsus dh fLFkfr esa] edku fdjk;k HkRrk] ;fn vU;Fkk xzkg; gS bl izdkj okfil lkSaius dh frfFk ls xzkg;
gksxkA"
___ "Payment of HRA will be made to only those employees and officers to whom quarter has not been allotted in accordance with order No.01-08-W-I/C/15 dt. 17-1-90 and circular dated 16.4.85. H.R.A. will not be paid to the person who has got house and constructed from his own resources (savings/loan) or loan taken from MPEB and refused to occupy the Board's quarter."
From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the employee was not entitled for House Rent Allowance, if the employee had refused to accept the house allotted to such an employee. But in 3 W.P.(S) No.780/2005 Narendra Singh Thakur The State of M.P. & others 9.5.2012 the present case, factual position is entirely different. Petitioner who had made an application to the respondents for allotment of the house was not allotted a house for a period of 6 years. Then, after obtaining due permission from the respondents, he had purchased a newly constructed house after obtaining loan from the bank. He had also obtained no-objection from the department and thereafter he was residing in the said house and while he was residing in the said house, his application was considered after a period of nearabout 15 years. When the petitioner had already purchased a house, then his denial to accept the allotted house was fully justified. In the present case, Clause (9) of Annexure R/1 is referred which reads as under:-
"9. Lo;a ds edkuksa esa jgus okys eaMy ds deZpkjh%& (I) vius Lo;a ds] iRuh@ifr@larku@ekrk ;k firk ds edku esa jgus okys eaMy ds deZpkjh Hkh bu vkns'kksa ds varxZr edku fdjk;k HkRrs ds ik= gksxsaA Vhi%& mij mYysf[kr eaMy ds deZpkfj;ksa dks edku fdjk;k HkRrk mUgha 'krksZa dh iwfrZ ds i'pkr Lohd`r gksxk tks fdjk;s ds futh edku esa jgus okys eaMy ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s ykxw gksrh gSA
(ii) ;fn eaMy ds fdlh deZpkjh dk dk;Z djus ds LFkku ij Lo;a dk edku gS ijUrq og mlds LFkku ij] fdjk;s ds edku esa jgrk gS] rks mls fdjk;s ds edku ds fy;s ;fn vU;Fkk xzkg; gS] edku fdjk;k HkRrk feysxkA"
Aforesaid provision specifically provides that if an employee is having his own house and he is residing in a rented house inspite of his own house, he shall be entitled for House Rent Allowance. In the present case, the petitioner who had purchased the house after obtaining loan from the bank and permission from the respondents had refused to accept allotment of house as he was residing in his own house, which was within the knowledge of the respondents. Respondents had accorded permission for the purchase of the 4 W.P.(S) No.780/2005 Narendra Singh Thakur The State of M.P. & others 9.5.2012 house. In these circumstances, refusal for the allotment of the house after 6 years, of the application, was fully justified and petitioner was entitled for House Rent Allowance as per Clause (9) of Annexure R/1.
Though it was submitted that petitioner ought to have withdrawn his application for allotment of quarter and could not have kept the application pending when he had already purchased his own house, but the aforesaid argument is having no substance. When the petitioner after waiting for more than one year had applied to respondents for purchase of the house and had purchased the house, this means that he had impliedly withdrawn application for allotment of quarter and he was not insisting for allotment of a quarter.
In aforesaid circumstances, order Annexure P/1 is not sustainable under the law and is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in light of clause (9) of the order/policy Annexure R/1(supra) within a period of 90 days from the date of communication of this order and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
No order as to costs C.C. as per rules.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) Judge C.