Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 698 (MP)

Nirmala Sonwane v. State of M. P.

2013-06-24

N.K.MODY

body2013
JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. The prayer in the petition is for quashment of order (Annexure P-6), dated 1-6-09 and also order (Annexure P-7), dated 29-6-09. Vide Annexure P-6, dated 1-6-09 petitioner was informed that since she lives with her husband who is receiving the House Rent Allowance, therefore, the House Rent Allowance received by the petitioner is recoverable. Vide Annexure P-7 petitioner was directed to refund the House Rent Allowance with effect from 9-4-81. Short facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC. Vide order dated 6-4-81 she was promoted on the post of UDC in the year 2003 and was further promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I. Husband of the petitioner was working as Driver-cum-Mechanic in the Bank Note Press, Dewas and retired with effect from 30-9-08 on completing the age of superannuation. Petitioner was granted House Rent allowance as per Govt. Rules with effect from 9-4-81, i.e., from the date of initial appointment. Vide order dated 14-11-08 an explanation was called from the petitioner as to why the amount paid to the petitioner should not be recovered. Reply was submitted. Vide order dated 1-6-09, the order of recovery was passed, against which the present petition has been filed. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority is illegal and deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that undisputedly husband of the petitioner was in job. It is submitted that as per Rule 8 of Swami's compilation, if the husband and wife both are in job of Central Govt. then both are entitled to draw House Rent Allowance, even if they work in the same station and live together but not provided with Govt. accommodation. It is submitted that no Govt. accommodation was allotted to the petitioner or her husband. It is submitted that since petitioner is in the job of State Govt. and husband of the petitioner was in the job of Central Govt., therefore, both of them are entitled for the House Rent Allowance. accommodation. It is submitted that no Govt. accommodation was allotted to the petitioner or her husband. It is submitted that since petitioner is in the job of State Govt. and husband of the petitioner was in the job of Central Govt., therefore, both of them are entitled for the House Rent Allowance. Learned Counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that petitioner was not entitled for House Rent Allowance and it was paid to the petitioner right from inception of service till 2008, i.e., more than 28 years, the House Rent Allowance was paid to the petitioner and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, therefore, there was no justification on the part of respondents to direct the petitioner for recovery of amount paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that it is true that House Rent Allowance was paid to the petitioner right from 1981 and no recovery was made from the petitioner because it was not in the knowledge of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner is in the service of Bank Note Press, Dewas and is drawing the House Rent Allowance from the Central Govt. and also the petitioner is living with her husband in the same house. It is submitted that petitioner played fraud and was illegally drawing House Rent Allowance from the State Govt. without disclosing the fact that her husband is also drawing the House Rent Allowance from the Bank Note Press, Dewas. It is submitted that since the respondent was not aware and the petitioner illegally took the benefit of House Rent Allowance by playing fraud, therefore, the respondent is having right to recover the amount which is illegally been paid. Learned Counsel placed reliance of Clause 10 (3) of allowances other than pay which reads as under:-- It is submitted that petition has no merits and the same be dismissed. 4. Undisputedly, husband of the petitioner was in the job with the Central Govt. and was retired with effect from 30-9-2008. The House Rent Allowance was paid to the petitioner right from 1981. When the husband of the petitioner joined the services and what type of fraud played by the petitioner is not on record. No payment was made to the petitioner upon misrepresentation. and was retired with effect from 30-9-2008. The House Rent Allowance was paid to the petitioner right from 1981. When the husband of the petitioner joined the services and what type of fraud played by the petitioner is not on record. No payment was made to the petitioner upon misrepresentation. Since the basic purpose to provide House Rent Allowance is to provide shelter to an employee and the husband of the petitioner was also in job of the Central Govt. and both of them are not in the job of Central Govt., therefore, both were not entitled for separate House Rent Allowance which is otherwise payable to the employees of Central Govt. as per rule quoted by the petitioner and mentioned hereinabove. However, since there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and if the House Rent Allowance is paid to the petitioner for years together on account of no fault on the part of petitioner, therefore, after 28 years there was no justification on the part of respondent to initiate recovery proceedings as no Govt. accommodation was allotted to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order whereby recovery has been initiated stands quashed. Since the husband of the petitioner has already retired with effect from 30-9-08, therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim House Rent Allowance which will be considered by the Competent Authority in accordance with rules within 8 weeks from the date of submission of representation. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.