Govt Employees Cannot Claim Hostel Subsidy Under Children's Education Allowance Scheme Merely Because School Mandates Hostel: Kerala HC

For context, the Children Education Allowance Scheme is a scheme introduced by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, in favour of the employees of the Department of Posts, whereby, several components of education, including Tuition fee, Admission fee, Laboratory fee, Special fee etc., are allowed to be claimed by an employee to facilitate their ward's education.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, which had rejected the employee's claim for hostel subsidy.

The scheme contains a provision for 'Hostel subsidy', which is the amount spent by an employee for the purpose of accommodating his or her children in a hostel, to a limit of Rs. 3,000/- each.

The petitioner, a Postal Assistant residing in Thiruvananthapuram, had enrolled his child in Sainik School, Kazhakkoottam. He argued that since hostel residence was compulsory for all students of the institution, the expenditure incurred should qualify for reimbursement under the hostel subsidy component of the scheme.

The petitioner initially filed a claim before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the tribunal. But, the said order was set aside by the High Court, remitting it for reconsideration. Subsequently, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner. This has resulted in the petitioner approaching the High Court.

The Court examined the provisions of the Children Education Allowance Scheme and noted that the scheme defines hostel subsidy as expenses incurred for keeping children in the hostel of a residential school or institution located beyond a distance of 50 kilometres from the employee's residence.

The petitioner contended that the objective of the scheme was to support employees in meeting educational expenses and that mandatory hostel residence should attract the subsidy irrespective of distance.

The Court rejected the contention and held that the subsidy provision must be interpreted in accordance with the policy framework formulated by the Government and cannot be expanded beyond its express terms.

The Court observed that while the scheme is a welfare measure, it remains a policy decision of the competent authority.

“It is perspicuous that the 'Scheme' is intended for the benefit of employees and is a welfare measure. However, it being a Scheme within the policy realm of the competent Authority, it would be impossible for this Court, while acting Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, to impose our wisdom and substitute its terms in any manner.…This Court does not obtain jurisdiction or competence to speak about the sweep of the 'Scheme' of this nature, or to suggest that a better version or terms, ought to be granted or substituted.” the Court said.

The Court further observed that the purpose of hostel subsidy is to alleviate the burden faced by employees who are compelled to place their children in hostels because suitable schooling is located far from their residence.

“It is to those parents who are employees of the Department of Posts, who are forced to put their children in school hostels, without there being any other option left, on account of the large amount of distance to be traversed, that the 'Scheme' applies. Different is a case as projected by the petitioner, where it is his choice to admit his child in a particular school where admission to the hostel was mandatory; and in this scenario, it is he who took the option, knowing fully well of its consequences.” Court added.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had several schooling options within a 50-kilometre radius and consciously opted for an institution requiring hostel accommodation. The Court held that the resulting expenditure stemmed from a personal choice rather than the kind of compulsion contemplated by the scheme.

“Solely for the need of completion, we must say that the purpose behind the 'Scheme' can surely be confined to the manner we have said above, and cannot be expanded to cover the personal choice of a parent, to admit his/her child to a particular school with peculiar or singular requisites, including mandatory hostel admission.” Court held.

The Court thus dismissed the petition and upheld the decision of the Tribunal.

Case Title: Anish Kumar S v Union of India and Ors.

Case No: OP(CAT) 60/ 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 322

Counsel for Petitioner: Godwin Joseph

Counsel for Respondents: O M Shalina (DSGI), K.R Rajkumar (Sr. Panel Counsel) P. Vijayakumar (ASG of India)