Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 832 (MAD)

Union of India v. P. Deepak Singh

2014-04-03

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT M. Sathyanarayanan, J. The official respondents in O.A.No.71 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, are the writ petitioners and aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2013, made in the said Original Application, wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the impugned proceedings, by and under which, his request for House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as "HRA") came to be rejected by holding that in terms of paragraph 1706 (a) (ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as "IREM"), he is entitled for House Rent Allowance for the period he shares accommodation with another Railway employee. 2. The facts of the case would disclose that the first respondent/original applicant joined the service of the Railway as Technician, Grade-III in the Salem Division at Erode Shed in the year 2006 and subsequently got promoted as Technician Grade-II and was working at Erode. The first respondent herein was accorded sanction for sharing the Railway quarters bearing Door No.578A, which was allotted to one M.Krishnamoorthy, Technician Grade-I, by order dated 17.8.2009. It is the claim of the first respondent herein that though he has shared the accommodation with another Railway employee, he is entitled to have the HRA as per Indian Railway Establishment Manual and Codes (IREM). The representation submitted by him in this regard, was rejected on the ground that he has not submitted the plinth area occupied with the co-sharer and also on the clarification that the personnel occupying the quarters which is allotted on subsidized rent, are not entitled for HRA. 3. It is the specific case of the first respondent/original applicant that as per 1706 (a)(ii) of IREM, he is entitled to claim HRA on sharing of accommodation with another Railway employee and the denial of the same is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the above said Manual. 4. The official respondents in the Original Application filed a reply stating among other things, that sharing accommodation with M.Krishnamoorthy was granted to the first respondent herein/original applicant subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions was that he should forego the HRA and also he accepted the same and subsequently he was permitted to share the accommodation with the said person and having accepted the condition, it is not open to the original applicant to go back and make a claim for HRA. The official respondents also took a stand that he was called upon to submit the rent receipt paid to the original allottee and the details of the floor area occupied by him in the said quarters to calculate proportionate rent, but he has not submitted the same and therefore, his claim for HRA came to be rejected rightly. 5. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the IREM 1706 (a)(i) and held that paragraph 1706 (a)(ii) is very clear and as per the said paragraph, the first respondent herein/original applicant is eligible to get HRA for sharing the accommodation with the original allottee, viz., M.Krishnamoorthy as he has not been provided with rent-free accommodation and in the light of the reasons, allowed the application as prayed for and challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn the attention of this court to the relevant provision of IREM and would submit that though the original manual provides for HRA for sharing accommodation, it came to be clarified subsequently by means of Board's Circular dated 21.12.1992, and as per para 2.3 of the said Circular, "no person, who shares an accommodation allotted to a Railway employee, shall be entitled to draw House Rent Allowance (HRA) from his/her employer covered under Para. 2.1 (a) and (b) above". The learned counsel for the petitioners also invited the attention of this Court to another Circular dated 18.4.1996, wherein a clarification has been sought as to the entitlement of HRA in case of sharing accommodation and the Southern Railway in its communication dated 30.8.2011, has informed that if the same quarters is shared by other Railway Servant, who probably pay only 50% or less of the subsidized rent, the question of giving HRA to such other Railway Servant also does not arise and therefore, they rightly rejected the request made by the original applicant and the said factual aspect has not been properly considered by the Tribunal and prayed for interference. 7. 7. Per contra, Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/original applicant, would contend that as per 1706 (a)(ii) of IREM, "a Railway servant who shares Government accommodation allotted to another Railway/Government employee (excluding those specified in (c), (d) and (e) of sub-rule (I) above shall be eligible for House Rent Allowance" and in the light of the said paragraph, the first respondent herein/original applicant is entitled to HRA at least to the tune of 50% and the circular relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has no application for the reason that the circulars are in the nature of administrative instructions and it cannot override the statutory rules and the said aspect has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and rightly allowed the original application. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent/original applicant that though a clarification has been sought on 18.4.1996, the fact remains that no amendment has been made to the said provision of IREM and on that ground also, the stand taken by the writ petitioners/official respondents, is unsustainable and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it in the form of a typed set of papers. 10. It is relevant to extract the paragraph 1703/R-II of IREM "1703/R-II. House Rent Allowance at above rates shall be paid to all employees (other than those provided with Government owned/hired accommodation) without requiring them to produce rent receipts. These employees shall, however, be required to furnish a certificate that they are incurring some expenditure on rent/contributing towards rent. 10. It is relevant to extract the paragraph 1703/R-II of IREM "1703/R-II. House Rent Allowance at above rates shall be paid to all employees (other than those provided with Government owned/hired accommodation) without requiring them to produce rent receipts. These employees shall, however, be required to furnish a certificate that they are incurring some expenditure on rent/contributing towards rent. 1705 (a)/R-II i. House Rent Allowance shall not be granted to a Railway employee if -- a. he does not incur any expenditure on rent for his accommodation; b. he occupies accommodation provided by the Government; c. he shares Government accommodation allotted rent-free to another Government servant ; d. he/she resides in accommodation allotted to his/her parents/son/daughter by the Central Government/ State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or Semi-Government organization such as a Municipality, Port Trust, Nationalised Banks, Life Insurance Corporation of India etc., and e. his wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government/State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi-Government organization such as municipality, Port Trust etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by hin/her. ii. A Railway servant who shares Government accommodation allotted to another Railway/Government employee (excluding those specified in (c) , (d) and (e) of sub-rule (i) above shall be eligible for House Rent Allowance." As per paragraph i a. (ii), a Railway servant who shares Government Accommodation allotted to another Railway/Government employee, shall be eligible for House Rent Allowance. 11. It is the stand of the writ petitioners that the original applicant/first respondent herein made a request for joint accommodation in respect of Quarter No.578A and it was considered and a memorandum dated 17.8.2009 came to be passed with the following conditions:- "(1) The sharer will forego HRA from the date of sharing accommodation. (2) Sharer should vacate the quarters when the allottee vacates the same or as and when he is asked to do so. (3) The allottee is responsible for vacation of quarters by the sharer when he vacates the same. (4) The allottee is only responsible for payment of rent to the administration during the period of incumbency. (5) If the allottee is not found staying in the quarters, the allotment will be cancelled without any notice." 12. (3) The allottee is responsible for vacation of quarters by the sharer when he vacates the same. (4) The allottee is only responsible for payment of rent to the administration during the period of incumbency. (5) If the allottee is not found staying in the quarters, the allotment will be cancelled without any notice." 12. The official respondents in their reply filed in the original application took a stand that though original applicant was directed to submit the rent receipt paid to the original allottee and the details of the floor area occupied by him in the said quarters to calculate proportionate rent, but he has not submitted the same and in the event of furnishing those particulars, he will be entitled to get HRA proportionately. 13. The fact remains that as per the provisions of the above paragraph 1706 (a)(ii) of IREM, a Railway servant who shares accommodation allotted to another Railway employee shall be eligible to get HRA at least to the tune of 50% and the memorandum dated 17.8.2009 stipulates that the sharer will forego HRA from the date of sharing accommodation, which is in tune with the statutory rule, viz., IREM. 14. It is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that in view of sharing the accommodation, the Railway Administration is also getting benefit for the reason that it can give accommodation to some other needy persons, who are in the waiting list and who are also having the family and the said aspect should also be taken into consideration by the Railway Administration. 15. The first respondent/original applicant has also responded in his reply dated 2.5.2011 stating that the allottee of Quarters No.578A is not on Rent free accommodation, allottee is not a relative and also deducting rent for sharing and it is also the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent /original applicant that full HRA is being deducted out of his salary and thereby administration is also deriving double benefit. 16. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the first petitioner to consider the plea of the first respondent/original applicant in consultation with the Railway Board and in tune with paragraph 1706 (a)(ii) of IREM. The first petitioner in consultation with the Railway Board is directed to consider the payment of 50% of HRA in respect of the sharing accommodation with M.Krishnamoorthy in respect of Quarters No.578A, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.