Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This petition is directed against order dated 11.2.1998 passed in O.A. No. 1290/CH-1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') granting House Rent Allowance to the applicant-respondent No. 1 on the ground that he has been working in a purely private institution i.e. Central Scientific Instrument Organisation (for brevity, 'CSIO'). The aforementioned finding has been recorded on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India, (1975) 1 SCC 485. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Darshan Kaur v. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 493-CH of 1992, decided on 21.5.1993, Annexure P-2). The operative part of the order dated 11.2.1998, passed by the Tribunal reads thus:-

"3. ......Notwithstanding the objection taken by the respondents it is seen that in the case of Smt. Darshan Kaur (Supra) the issues as involved in the present case were directly before the Bench and were adjudicated upon. There also the applicant Darshan Kaur was an employee of the State Government being a JBT Teacher while her husband was employee of CSIO. The Bench in para 4 relying upon the judgement of the Sabhajit Tewari as rendered by the Supreme Court, has concluded that CSIO which is part of CSIR is only a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act even though the Government exercises financial and administrative control over it. There being adjudication by this Bench on similar question, this Bench is bound by the same as there is no material to differ with the same. Matter has also been considered, though not totally of similarly placed persons in the case of S.C. Tajarshi Vs. Union of India, reported as *5(4) SLR, 156 (Annexure A-3) and (Annexure A-4).

Mr. Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that apart from the fact that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) has been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111, the case of the applicant- respondent No. 1 is based on the interpretation, which is required to be given to para 5(c)(iii) of the Office Memorandum No. F.2.(37)-E-II(B)/64, dated 27.11.1965. Learned counsel has emphasised that according to the aforesaid clause a Government servant would not be entitled to House Rent Allowance if the spouse has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-Government organization such as Municipality, Port Trust, etc. whether the other spouse resides in that accommodation or separately by hiring the accommodation. According to the learned counsel the plain meaning of the aforesaid clause is that if any of the spouse is allotted accommodation in a governmental or semi- governmental organization or a public undertaking then no House Rent Allowance to them would be payable irrespective of sharing the accommodation with the spouse who has been allotted the accommodation at the same station. He has submitted that the reliance placed by the Tribunal in its earlier judgment in Darshan Kaur's case (supra) is totally misplaced despite the fact that the basic rationale underlying Darshan Kaur's case has been knocked down by overruling of the judgment in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) in a later judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (supra). His simple argument is that once no accommodation has been made by CSIO then it would be wholly irrelevant to consider whether CSIO is a public authority or a semi-Government organization or an autonomous public undertaking. According to the learned counsel the consideration has to be based on the character of the allotting organization, which in the present case would be the Panjab University.

The Tribunal has committed grave error in law by following the judgment in Darshan Kaur's case (supra) because in that case recovery was sought to be effected from Smt. Darshan Kaur on the ground that her husband had been allotted Government accommodation in C.S.I.O. Colony, Chandigarh, on the ground that CSIO has not been held to be a public body by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra), the Tribunal had held that the accommodation allotted to her husband cannot be regarded to have been allotted by the Central Government, State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-Government organisation such as Municipality, Port Trust etc. It was, therefore, held that the House Rent Allowance availed by Smt. Darshan Kaur was lawful. Accordingly, benefit was granted. In the present case, the accommodation has not been allotted by a private organisation as was the position in Darshan Kaur's case (supra). The accommodation in the present case has been allotted to the spouse of the applicant-respondent No. 1 by the Panjab University, which is a creature of the statute and it has to act according to the legislation. We also find considerable force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was wholly irrelevant for the Tribunal to apply the principle of law laid down in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) merely because it has granted the benefit of House Rent Allowance in Darshan Kaur's case (supra) on that basis. In any case, the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sabhajit Tewary's case (supra) has already been overruled in Pradeep Kumar Biswas's case (supra). Therefore, the Tribunal has committed grave error in law and accordingly the impugned order dated 11.2.1998 passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable.