Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 8 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Nilima Dutta

2013-06-12

DEEPAK GUPTA, S.C.DAS

body2013
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J. 1. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent in the appeal (original writ petitioner) who is an employee of the State Government and her husband who is an employee of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank were both entitled to house rent allowance or not. It is not disputed that the employees of the Government of Tripura are governed by the Office Memorandum dated 2nd January, 1976 as amended on 19th January, 1977 in so far as grant of house rent allowance is concerned. Para 5 of the Office Memorandum as amended reads as follows: (i) In case where both the husband and the wife are the employees of the State Government, the allowance will be admissible either to the husband or to the wife, whichever is more favourable to them, provided that either or both of them are otherwise eligible and posted at the same station. If they are posted in different stations, the allowance will be admissible to both of them. (ii) In case where either the husband or the wife is an employee of this Government and other is an employee of the Central Government/State Government/Autonomous Public Undertakings/Semi-Government's Organisations like Municipality, Nationalised Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India, IAC, etc/State Sector Undertaking like T.R.T.C., T.H.H.D.C./TSIC or Government aided educational Institutions and where the husband and wife are both posted in the same station, the drawal of allowance by the employee of this Government will be regulated as shown below:- 2. The learned Single Judge held that since the husband of the original writ petitioner was an employee of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank he could not be considered to be an employee of the State and also held that the Tripura State Cooperative Bank cannot be compared with the Nationalized Bank or State Sector Undertakings and as such both the writ petitioner and her husband were entitled to draw house rent allowance. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed the present appeal. 3. We have heard Sri J. Majumder, learned counsel for the State and Sri D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the respondent/original writ petitioner. 4. Sub para (ii) of para 5 of the Office Memorandum extracted hereinabove shows that the definition in the latter part of the para is not a complete definition but is only an inclusive definition. 3. We have heard Sri J. Majumder, learned counsel for the State and Sri D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the respondent/original writ petitioner. 4. Sub para (ii) of para 5 of the Office Memorandum extracted hereinabove shows that the definition in the latter part of the para is not a complete definition but is only an inclusive definition. In the first part of the definition it is written that the employees of Central Government/State Government/Autonomous Public Undertakings/Semi Government Organizations, like Municipality, Nationalized Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India, IAC, etc. This clearly indicates that the exclusion was not limited to only those undertakings mentioned in this sub para but it was to include other organizations of similar nature. 5. One of the well known principles of interpretation is the principle of "Ejusdem Generis" where the definition must be taken to its logical conclusion to include things which are similar to those mentioned in the main part of the section, clause, para, etc. When Nationalized Banks, Life Insurance Corporation, Indian Airlines Corporation have been included it is more than obvious that the intention of the legislature was that all those organizations, which had the element of being Public Sector Bodies or being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would be covered under this sub para and employees of such organizations would be covered under this sub para. 6. We are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge or his conclusion that employees of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank are not covered under para (ii). We have to consider the entire matter in a holistic manner. The intention of the legislature was that where both spouses are Government employees or where one is a Government employee and the other is working with either the State or Central Government or Public Sector Undertaking of the State or the Government or other such Semi-Government Organizations, Nationalized Banks, etc., then both of them would not get house rent. The interpretation has to be purposive. The purpose is to ensure that both spouses do not get house rent, especially when they are employed by the Government/Government Undertakings/Semi Government Undertakings and Bodies of similar nature. The interpretation has to be purposive. The purpose is to ensure that both spouses do not get house rent, especially when they are employed by the Government/Government Undertakings/Semi Government Undertakings and Bodies of similar nature. When Nationalized Banks, Indian Airlines Corporation and Aided Educational Institutions have been covered and the words, 'like' and 'etc.' have been used, it is but obvious that the employees of the Cooperative Bank would also be covered. It is not disputed that majority of the shares of Cooperative Bank are held by the State Government. The Cooperative Society is also a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 7. Therefore, we are of the considered view that employees of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank also fall within the purview of sub para (ii). 8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 28.11.2007 in Civil Rule No. 206 of 1998 and, consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.