Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner has put to challenge the impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 119/2003, rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA) for the period from 25.09.2007 to 13.07.2009. The impugned judgment and order had been made on the ground that despite there being vacant Type-IV quarters which could have been allotted to the petitioner instead of grant of HRA in terms of the Government Circulars applicable to the petitioner, the petitioner had not applied for allotment of the vacant quarters. Thus, in terms of the Government Circulars the petitioner could not be eligible for grant of HRA.

Page No.# 5/15

7. The petitioner's further case is that while occupying the Type II quarter allotted by the N.F. Railway Authority from the date of his appointment, he started constructing his own residential house. He shifted to his private residence on completion of the same on 22.09.2007, after vacating his official accommodation. The petitioner thereafter claimed HRA with effect from 25.09.2007, i.e., the date from which the quarter that had been allotted to him was allotted to another railway official. The petitioner's case is that he had been granted HRA with effect from 14.07.2009, though the petitioner was to be given HRA for the period from 25.09.2007 till 13.07.2009. The petitioner being aggrieved by not being granted HRA for the period from 25.09.2007 to 13.07.2009, approached the learned CAT by filing O.A. No. 119/2013, which was rejected vide the impugned Judgment & Order dated 30.01.2015. As such, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2016.

22. We have also seen the reply dated 03.05.2011 to the petitioner's RTI question at Sl. No.2, which shows that there were 7 vacant Type-IV quarters on 25.09.2007, i.e, there were more quarters vacant than officers entitled to Type- IV quarters.

23. Keeping in view the fact that there was no distinction between officers who are having their own residence and those who did not, the letters/circulars issued by the Government/ Railways shows that it was mandatory on the part of Railway officers to apply for the vacant quarters. Further, in terms of the letter/circular dated 07.06.1988, HRA could be given to those who did not submit application for accommodation and who after submitting application for such accommodation refused to accept it when offered or who having accepted such accommodation surrendered it, unless the number of units available for allotment did not exceed the number of eligible employees. In the present case, the number of vacant Type-IV quarters to which the petitioner is entitled to, was more than the number of eligible officers and thus, in terms of the letters/circulars applicable to the Railway officers entitled to Type-IV quarters, HRA could not have been given to the petitioner from 25.09.2007. We do not know as to whether those 5 persons mentioned in the communication dated Page No.# 13/15 23.03.2011, who have been granted HRA were eligible to be given HRA in terms of the letters/circulars dated 07.06.1988 and 09.05.2002. Assuming that those 5 persons, i.e. Sl. Nos.1, 4, 7, 8 & 10 were not entitled to HRA in terms of the above letters/circulars, but were given the same, we are unable to hold that the petitioner is entitled to HRA on grounds of discrimination. This would only result in perpetuating an illegality, inasmuch as, the grant of HRA is governed by the letters/circulars mentioned above, which is applicable to the case in hand. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the learned Tribunal in rejecting the case of petitioner.

27. Keeping in view the fact that there were more vacant Type-IV quarters than eligible officers and in the absence of the petitioner making an application for allotment of a vacant Type-IV quarters, in terms of the letters/circulars applicable to the Railway officials, we are of the view that no grounds for interference with the decision of the learned tribunal has been made out.

28. Having stated the above, as the payment of HRA had been made by the Railway Authorities to the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in the Review Petition, which was subject to further orders that may be passed in the Review Petition. As the order disposing of the Review Petition had held that recovery of the HRA already paid to the petitioner would not be made Page No.# 15/15 until further orders, we hold that there is no justification for the petitioner to keep hold of the HRA given to him for the period from 25.09.2007 till 13.07.2009, as the claim for the HRA for the said period is to be dismissed.