Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2453 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. High Court

2005-09-15

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.08.2001, whereby his request for grant of house rent for the period 01.09.2000 to 30th April, 2001 has been declined. 2. The short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that while the petitioner was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar by order of the High Court dated 29th August, 2000, he was kept under awaiting posting orders at Jaipur with immediate effect. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar General on telephone he reported to the Registrar, Administration at Jaipur on 01.09.2000. Subsequently pending departmental enquiry he was put under suspension by order dated 20.11.2000. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 30th April, 2001. He was paid salary for the period of APO on 04.06.2001. After his case for payment of salary was settled, an application was submitted for the payment of house rent during the period of APO/suspension i.e., 01.09.2000 to 30th April, 2001. The application was also accompanied by the original receipts of the rent. The applicantion for grant of HRA was rejected on the ground that such an application was to be filed within a period of one month as per Rule 4(4) of the House Rent Allowances Rules, 1989. He filed a review application against the order dated 21.08.2001 but the same was also rejected by order dated 112.2002. In a reply to the writ petition the respondents has justified the stand taken for rejection of the prayer for grant of HRA. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel that as he was not paid salary for the period of APO/suspension as such there was no occasion for him to submit any application for grant of HRA. When, he was paid the salary, a claim was filed for grant of HRA. The learned Counsel appearing for the High Court has reiterated the stand taken while rejecting the prayer for grant of HRA. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. When, he was paid the salary, a claim was filed for grant of HRA. The learned Counsel appearing for the High Court has reiterated the stand taken while rejecting the prayer for grant of HRA. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the House Rent Allowances Rules, 1989 reads as follows:- a ds vUrxZuk i= izLrqÞ¼4½ bu fu;eksr izkFkZr djus ij jktdh; jkT; deZpkjh dks HkÙkk ml fnu ls xzg.k dh gks] ijUrq vxj txg xz eatwj fd;k tk,xk ftl fnu fdjk,@LokfeRo dh txg xzg.k djus ds ,d ekl ds Hkhrj vxj izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gks] ojuk izkFkZuk i= fd, tkus ds fnu ls HkÙkk vuqx`fgr gksxkAß The Sub-rule (4) provides that a Government employee should be paid house rent from the date he occupies the rented premises, provides such an application is filed within a period of one month, otherwise the rent shall be paid from the date of filing the application. 5. In the instance case, the petitioner was kept under Awaiting Posting Orders by order dated 29th August, 2000. He was kept Awaiting Posting Order at Jaipur. He was also asked to immediately report to Registrar Administration, Jaipur. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar General he reported to the Registrar (Administration), Jaipur on 01.09.2000. As per the orders of the High Court he continued to stay at Jaipur until attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that he was paid salary for the period of APO after his retirement. Under these circumstances, there is justification in the say of the petitioner that he could not file any application for the payment of house rent. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the House Rent Allowances Rules cannot be interpreted in a manner which deprives an employee of the house rent. Where a statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner in which and time within which the duty shall be performed, injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescription may be relevant factor in holding such prescription only directory. Thus, we are of the view that the provision of submitting an application for payment of house rent within a period of one month is directive in nature. Thus, we are of the view that the provision of submitting an application for payment of house rent within a period of one month is directive in nature. In a case where the application is not submitted within a period of one month the authority is required to consider the reasons for not submitting the application within one month. The respondents cannot take advantage of its own wrong. The petitioner complied with the orders of the respondents immediately by reporting before the Registrar Administration on 01.09.2000. It is not in dispute that since then he continued to stay at Jaipur. Obviously, he must have stayed in a rented house. The petitioner has produced the rent receipts. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement to the effect that he resided in a rented premises. Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the house rent for the period he remained under Awaiting Posting Orders/ suspension. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21.08.2001 and 112.2002 are set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the house rent to the petitioner for the period 01.09.2000 to 30th April, 2001 within a period of three months. No order as to cost.