Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2895 (BOM)

Anjali v. Govt. Of India And Other

2018-12-06

R.K.DESHPANDE, VINAY JOSHI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vinay Joshi, J. (Oral) - The petitioner, in the service of the respondent No.2 Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd., Chandrapur, prayed for quashment of the impugned communication dated 25.5.2006, by which the respondent No.2 decided to recover the house rent allowance already paid to the petitioner from 12.6.1990 and rejected petitioner''s request for release of the house rent allowance from 14.12.2005 onward. 2. The petitioner joined the service of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) on 29.5.1981 and was posted at Bhilai Steel Plant. Thereafter, at her request, she was transferred and posted with the respondent No.2 Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd. on 12.6.1990, which is a subsidiary company of SAIL. The petitioner gave residential address of her husband, who, being a Government servant, was residing in the Government accommodation. The petitioner attracted our attention to the circular dated 11.7.2005 issued by the respondent No.2- Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd., by which they decided to regulate the house rent allowance policy. Clause 3 of the said circular provided that in case one spouse has been allotted the Government accommodation, then the other will not be entitled for the house rent allowance. According to the petitioner, though the said circular has been issued in the year 2005, the action of respondent No.2 seeking recovery from the year 1990 is illegal. Undisputedly, the respondent No.2 is a subsidiary company of SAIL, which has already regulated the policy of the house rent allowance in the year 1990, wherein it is crystallized that if one spouse is residing in the Government accommodation, the other will not be entitled for the house rent allowance. Therefore, the petitioner, being in the service of the respondent No.2, cannot avail the benefit of revival of the circular issued by the subsidiary company. 3. The petitioner has not disputed that from the year 1990 onwards, she is residing in the Government accommodation provided to her husband, who is in Government service. However, the fact remains that though the petitioner disclosed her residential address of the Government accommodation of her husband, still the house rent allowance was paid by respondent No.2 from the year 1990 - that too for next fifteen years. It is not the respondents'' stand that they were unaware about the petitioner''s residential address. However, the fact remains that though the petitioner disclosed her residential address of the Government accommodation of her husband, still the house rent allowance was paid by respondent No.2 from the year 1990 - that too for next fifteen years. It is not the respondents'' stand that they were unaware about the petitioner''s residential address. Likewise, the petitioner also failed to bring to the conscious knowledge of the employer that despite her residing in the Government quarter, the house rent allowance is being paid. In the result, the situation emerges that there are certain lapses on the part of both sides. Taking into account the said specific feature, we are of the view that the respondent No.2 is entitled to recover the house rent allowance only to the extent of last three years, which is rational and within permissible limit. 4. So far as the second ground of challenge about release of the house rent allowance from 14.12.2005 onwards is concerned, the said prayer is not pressed by the petitioner, since admittedly she was living in the Government accommodation, which was provided to her husband. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The respondent No.2 Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd., Chandrapur is entitled to recover the house rent allowance from the petitioner only to the extent of three years preceding to the date of the circular, i.e. 11.7.2005, after adjusting the amount, if any, already recovered. Rest of the prayer stands rejected. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.