Court No. - 13
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15823 of 2007 Petitioner :- Rudra Prasad Mishra And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.N. Pandey,Anil Kumar Sharma,Havaldar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 5th December, 2006, whereby the recovery of the amount of Rs. 12,41,355/- has been directed from the petitioners on the ground that they have drawn the House Rent Allowance at the rate admissible to the District Allahabad, though the institution is admittedly situated in District Kaushambi. The order of recovery has been passed on the basis of the Audit Objection Report that the employees, who have been working in District Kaushambi, should have drawn the House Rent Allowance as admissible to the said district and in the category of the said district office, where the office of the petitioners situates and the petitioners have been working over there.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the considerations made in the order impugned are absolutely erroneous and the respondents manifestly erred in holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the house rent and allowance by ignoring the Government Orders in this regard having been issued by the State Government on 06.08.1999 and 25.2.2002.
On conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Government Orders in the even of employee in the office is within the 8 km. of the municipality limits of a district then such employees will be entitled to the House Rent Allowance as admissible to the employees as per the category assigned to the district of which, the concerned municipality belongs.
Further, in view of the Government Order dated 6th August, 1999, if under no circumstances, a House Rent Allowance amount could be less than what the employees have otherwise been drawing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also draw the attention of the Court towards the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Uma Shankar Singh's case, in which the Full Bench of this Court has been considered. It has come in the judgment that the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur and another vs. Shri Rajwanta Singh, came to be referred and moot question was with regard to the applicability of the House Rent Allowance guidelines.
In relation to the GOs that have been issued and whether the municipality limit of a district where the petitioners are residing, will have the effect to determine the House Rent Allowance or the district in which the office concerned is situated. The Division Bench referred the answer of the Full Bench, which reads as under:
"5. Thereafter Full Bench considered the matter and answered the aforesaid questions vide order dated 18.9.2015 as under:
"Question (a)- The Government Order dated 10 December 2002 was in the context of the facts of a particular educational institution, namely, Om Prakash Jwala Devi Higher Secondary School, Shuklaganj and does not lay down a binding principle of interpretation in regard to the admissibility of HRA under the terms of the Government Order dated 15 December 1981 and consequential Government Orders which have been referred to in the earlier part of the present judgment.
Question (b)- The issue as to whether the Government Order dated 10 December 2002 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 will not arise in this reference.
Question (c)- The judgment of the Division Bench in DIOS, Mirzapur vs. Sri Rajwanta Singh Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1051 of 2007 dated 22 November 2007 is affirmed as laying down the correct principle of law. The relevant principle for the purposes of computing and determining the admissibility of HRA in terms of the relevant Government Order dated 15 December 1981 and the Government Orders which have been referred to in the present judgment, is the place of work. If the place of work falls within a notified municipal area or though beyond municipal limits is within a distance of eight kilometers of the municipal limits, HRA would be payable at the rate as applicable in respect of the municipal area. The district within which the institution is situated would not be material so long as the institution or place of work is within the municipal limits or within a distance of eight kilometers beyond the municipal limits."
The admitted position in the present case is that the office of the petitioner where he worked fell within 8 km. of the municipal limit of Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, and so the petitioner, as per the aforesaid judgment, was entitled to draw house rent allowance as admissible to within the municipal limits, Nagar Nigam Allahabad, and thus there was no illegality if petitioner has been paid House Rent Allowance as per above norms. There is, therefore, no occasion to hold that petitioner has been wrongly paid amount and that too by any misrepresentation or fraud warranting recovery impugned herein this petition.
In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the order impugned of recovery cannot be sustained in law. The order dated 5.12.2006 is hereby set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to all dues in accordance with law.
Writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 LN Tripathi