Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 234 (RAJ)

Bhagwandas Najkani v. Union of India

2006-01-21

G.S.SARRAF, Y.R.MEENA

body2006
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the following prayers have been made:- “(i) By quashing the order dated 23.06.1993 vide Annexure-1 and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.01.2000 vide Annexure-8. (ii) By directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the house rent to which the petitioner is entitled during the period 23.06.1993 to 25.04.1996 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. (iii) Any other relief which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. The main controversy involved in this petition is that when the Type-II quarter was allotted to the petitioner and if he did not occupy that, can he be entitled for the house rent allowance. 3. A Type-II quarter was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.06.1993 under a scheme i.e., "Rent Free Accommodation to Sub-Post Masters". He did not occupy that quarter and claimed for house rent allowance. That was rejected as once the house is allotted to him and if he refuse to occupy that house, he is not entitled for the house rent allowance. 4. He filed the OA and Tribunal has considered this aspect as under:- “On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we feel that Sub-Post Masters can be considered as a special class within the Postal Department in view of the fact that they are custodians of substantial amount of cash and valuable money related documents like stamps, postal orders etc. The Government has, therefore, in their wisdom provided for rent free accommodation being made available to the Post Masters in general, including the SPMs so that in case of emergency they are able to reach their respective Post Offices with no loss of time and in any case within one hour of the information received by them. We, therefore, find no fault with the Presidential order communicated by DG, P&T letter dated 03.05.1972 (Annexure-R/1) under which provision of rent free quarters or grant of HRA in lieu has been made to departmental Post Masters/Sub Post-masters/Branch Post-masters. It has been clearly mentioned in that letter that according to Para 3(a) of Appendix-11 of the Manual of Appointments and Allowances (3rd Edition) and Rule 37 of P&T Manual Vol. It has been clearly mentioned in that letter that according to Para 3(a) of Appendix-11 of the Manual of Appointments and Allowances (3rd Edition) and Rule 37 of P&T Manual Vol. VI, rent free quarters are allowed to Post Masters and such other establishments as it may be necessary for the proper discharge of the work of Post Offices to have residence on the premises. All the Post-masters are required to sleep on the office premises as stated by the respondents. The condition of sleeping in the premises has been dispensed with and the matter was, therefore, reviewed in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and Accountant General, P&T and the "President was pleased to decide that there was no objection to provide rent free quarters to Post Masters away from the Post Office provided that it is ensured that the distance of the quarters from the Post Office concerned does not prove detrimental to the efficient discharge of his duties and that in the event of emergency the Post Master is able to reach the Post Office within an hour". Against the back-ground of this presidential order of 03.05.1972, we feel that normal rules of allocation of quarters as contained in DG P&T letter dated 25.06.1966 and on which the applicants have based their case are not applicable for the category of Post Masters and in any case the said letter of 25.06.1966 has not mentioned anywhere that it supersedes the letter dated 03.05.1972. On the other hand, the letter mentions that necessary orders amending the relevant provisions in the Manual of Appointments and Allowances and P&T Manual Vol. VI will be issued separately. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that the allotment of quarters made through the impugned order dated 23.06.1993 (Annexure-A/1) is proper and no interference is required from the Tribunal. Consequently, the other averments regarding applicability of SRs 311-316 and FR 45 also do not stand.” 5. Mr. Kapoor submits that when he has personal house at the same distance as of the Government accommodation, he is entitled for the house rent allowance and he can refuse to occupy that Government accommodation. He further submits that in 1993 some houses are attached for allotment to the Sub-Post Masters, but in 1996 again they are detached and put in the general pool for allotment. He further submits that in 1993 some houses are attached for allotment to the Sub-Post Masters, but in 1996 again they are detached and put in the general pool for allotment. The case of the petitioner is that as no facilities were available at the time when the house was allotted, nobody was willing to occupy those houses, therefore, he did not occupy that house and he has his own house at the same distance. Therefore, the house rent allowance should be paid to him. 6. Counsel for the respondents brought to our notice that the house was allotted to the petitioner under the special scheme and as per the Circular dated 11.07.2000 if any employee refuse to occupy the attached rent free accommodation, he is not entitled for the house rent allowance. 7. Considering the fact that when the house was allotted, that too rent free accommodation under the special scheme, he should occupy that house. When he was not willing to occupy that house he should submit a representation before the concerned authority that even if he refuse to occupy the Government accommodation, he is entitled for the house rent allowance, therefore, the accommodation which has been allotted to him should be cancelled. 8. No such facts are brought on record by the petitioner. Once the house is allotted to him and remained allotted in his name till 1996 i.e., till his retirement, we see no reason to interfere in the order of Tribunal. He is not entitled for the house rent allowance, especially when the house remained allotted in his name in 1993 till 1996, when he retired. 9. No interference is called for. Consequently the writ petition stands dismissed.