Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner, working with the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC), by this writ petition impugns the action of respondent IOC of seeking to recover back the House Rent Allowance (HRA) paid to the petitioner w.e.f. 1st January, 1997 to 31st January, 2003; the petitioner seeks further direction for payment to him of HRA from 1st February, 2003 onwards.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement between the respondent IOC and its workmen, HRA is payable on revised basic pay effective 1st January, 1997, without production of rent receipt and merely upon the workmen furnishing a certificate that they have incurred expenditure on rent/contributed towards rent/residented accommodation etc; that he was being so paid HRA w.e.f. 1st January, 1997; however the payment of HRA to him was stopped w.e.f. February, 2003 on the ground that his wife was also employed with the respondent IOC and also drawing HRA and as per the policy of respondent IOC, in case of both husband and wife working with IOC and posted at the same location, HRA without production of rent receipt is admissible to only one of the spouses, except when the rental value of the house exceeds the HRA paid to one of the spouses and in which case the other spouse may draw HRA to the extent of shortfall in the assessed rent and HRA paid to one of the spouses. It is the case of the petitioner that under the rules relating to HRA applicable to Central Government employees, HRA is allowed even if an employee shares private accommodation with spouse (both husband and wife are allowed HRA separately) and HRA is not allowed only if an employee shares accommodation allotted rent free to the spouse. It was thus the contention of the petitioner that the action of respondent IOC of stoppage of payment of HRA to him w.e.f. 1st February, 2003 and the further action of respondent IOC of seeking to recover back HRA paid to him from 1st January, 1997 to 31st January, 2003 is bad.

3. This Court vide ex-parte order dated 27th July, 2004, while issuing notice of the writ petition, on the contention of the petitioner that the HRA Rules applicable to Central Government employees should also apply to the employees of the respondent IOC, stayed the recovery of HRA by respondent IOC from the petitioner. The said order was confirmed on 8th October, 2007.

4. The respondent IOC has contended that the HRA Rules applicable to the Central Government employees are not applicable to IOC. It is contended that payment of HRA to employees of IOC is governed only by the Memorandum of Settlement between IOC and its employees/workmen.

10. The accommodation earlier occupied by the petitioner and his wife from 1st February, 2003 to 21st March, 2004 was not got assessed. I am now not inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to have the rent of that accommodation assessed. The petitioner and his wife ought to have known of the New Settlement and acted thereunder. The petitioner himself being at fault, is not entitled to HRA from 1st February, 2003 to 21st March, 2004. The contention of the petitioner that as per rules of HRA applicable to Government employees, he is entitled to HRA is not acceptable in view of Clause 5.4 in the New Settlement and with which the petitioner is bound. A Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. The Workmen AIR 1967 SC 948 has held that though in fixing the pay structure of public corporations (as IOC is), due regard should be had to pay structure in Civil Services, the same is only advisory in nature and does not mean that wage structure of public corporation should be of same pattern obtaining in departments of the Government.