Railway Employee Who Voluntarily Vacates Official Quarter Can't Claim HRA When Similar Accommodation Remains Vacant: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that a railway employee who vacates official accommodation and does not apply for available entitled-category quarters is not entitled to House Rent Allowance, and such claim cannot be sustained merely on the ground that similarly placed employees were granted HRA.A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “the number...
The Gauhati High Court has held that a railway employee who vacates official accommodation and does not apply for available entitled-category quarters is not entitled to House Rent Allowance, and such claim cannot be sustained merely on the ground that similarly placed employees were granted HRA.
A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “the number of vacant Type-IV quarters to which the petitioner is entitled to, was more than the number of eligible officers and thus, in terms of the letters/circulars applicable to the Railway officers entitled to Type-IV quarters, HRA could not have been given to the petitioner from 25.09.2007.”
The Court further clarified, “Assuming that those 5 persons, i.e. Sl. Nos.1, 4, 7, 8 & 10 were not entitled to HRA in terms of the above letters/circulars, but were given the same, we are unable to hold that the petitioner is entitled to HRA on grounds of discrimination. This would only result in perpetuating an illegality.”
The ruling was delivered in a writ petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his claim for HRA.
The case of the petitioner was that he had been serving in the N.F. Railway and was occupying a Type-II quarter. He vacated the same on 22.09.2007 after constructing his own house and shifted to his private residence. He claimed HRA from 25.09.2007, but the authorities granted HRA only from 14.07.2009. Being aggrieved by denial of HRA for the intervening period, he approached the Tribunal, and thereafter filed the present writ petition.
The respondents contended that the petitioner was not entitled to HRA as there was vacant entitled-category accommodation available. It was submitted that in terms of the Railway Board circulars, where such accommodation is available, the employee must apply for the same, failing which HRA is not admissible.
The Court examined the circular dated 07.06.1988 and held that mere surrender or non-application does not automatically entitle an employee to HRA.
Referring to the conditions governing admissibility, the Court observed, “there should not be vacant residential units remaining as a result of such refusal or surrender or non- application for accommodation, which would render the said railway official to be ineligible for grant of HRA.”
It further noted, “in case of surrender of the accommodation, HRA, if otherwise admissible, will be payable from the date it is certified by the Accommodation Controlling Authority that no accommodation in the entitled class was available for allotment.”
On facts, the Court recorded that there were 7 vacant Type-IV quarters on the relevant date and that the number of available quarters exceeded the number of eligible officers. In such circumstances, the petitioner's failure to apply for allotment disentitled him from claiming HRA.
The Court also noted, “Assuming that those 5 persons, i.e. Sl. Nos.1, 4, 7, 8 & 10 were not entitled to HRA in terms of the above letters/circulars, but were given the same, we are unable to hold that the petitioner is entitled to HRA on grounds of discrimination. This would only result in perpetuating an illegality.”
Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's decision, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed recovery of the HRA amount already paid to the petitioner for the disputed period.
Case Number: WP(C)/2576/2016
Case Name: Kandarpa Kanta Sarma v. Union of India and 3 Ors.