Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In view of above, show cause notice dated 1.11.2006 was issued to the applicant calling upon her to explain why recovery of excess amount should not be ordered for recovering the loss with simple interest. She gave a detailed reply but without considering her contentions, disciplinary authority passed an order on 15.3.2007 ordering recovery of HRA for the period from 17.6.1987 to 31.8.2003 drawn unauthorisedly by the applicant (page 25).

6. Being aggrieved, applicant filed an appeal but that was rejected on 15.5.2007. These orders have been challenged by the applicant on the ground that ITDC has formulated its own rules, regulations and service conditions for allotment of residential accommodation to its employees and HRA for non-allottees of residential accommodation. Since HRA was allowed by way of settlement, no recovery could have been ordered. In any case if Central Government rules are applied to the applicant then the house allotted to her husband should have been regularized in her name after her husband had retired on 20.7.2005. She had applied for it, however, Director of Establishment returned the application on the ground that ITDC is not recognized under the rules for allotment of Government residential accommodation. The house was surrendered and applicant shifted to private house on 10.4.2006.

13. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed. Counsel for the respondents relied on Gurvinder Kang & Others Vs. Director of Education and Others reported in 2000 (53) DRJ 332 and Rajni Devi Vs. U.O.I. (Writ Petition Civil No.7132/2008) decided on 18.8.2009.

14. I have heard all the counsel and perused the pleadings as well as judgments relied upon. The question before me is whether an employee of ITDC can be denied HRA in view of settlement arrived at between ITDC and whether excess amount could be recovered from the employee of ITDC on the ground that she was sharing accommodation allotted to her husband by the Central Government without regularizing the said accommodation in her name after the retirement of her husband.

15. Since the whole case of the applicant was based on the settlement, it would be necessary to see what was the scope of settlement. Perusal of page 94 shows that ITDC had constituted a wage review committee in 1977 to recommend revision in the then existing emolument structure of the non-officer employees in ITDC. The committee observed that the emolument structure of the non-officer employees of the non-hotel and non-catering units (hereinafter referred to as Non-HCE) are based on the emoluments pattern for similar employees in Central Government so no general decision is called for except some changes and improvement in the welfare benefits. It was further clarified that in case the emolument structure of Central Government employees is revised, the question of revision of Non-HCE employees will be considered meaning thereby that parity was maintained with Central Government employees. It was in this backdrop that it was agreed that the non officer employees may be granted HRA as they are drawing the pay scale, DA and CCA on Central Government pattern.

20. Eligible office has been defined in clause ( e) of Rule 317 B-1 (2) as follows:-

 Eligible office means a Central Government office, the staff of which has been declared by the Central Government as eligible for accommodation under these rules.
There is nothing on record to show that staff of ITDC have been declared by the Central Government to be eligible for accommodation. Counsel for the applicant could not demonstrate that ITDC is also included for allotment/regularization of Government house. It is thus clear that applicant has no right in law to insist that the Government quarter allotted to her husband, who was a Government employee, should be regularized in her name. She has no right to get the Government accommodation regularized in her name as ITDC is not covered under the Allotment of Government Residences Rules 1963. In view of above the comparison drawn by the applicant is totally misconceived. This argument is, therefore, rejected.