SANDHYA V MUDKAVI Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 22.8.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.No.419/2011. Petitioner is working as Junior Telecom Officer in the respondent-BSNL, whereas her husband Sri Vidyadhar Mudkavi is a Scientist at National Aerospace Laboratories. Sri Vidyadhar Mudkavi has occupied an official quarters provided by his employer-NAL which is a statutory and autonomous body. The petitioner being the wife of Sri Vidyadhar Mudkavi living with her husband happily in the said quarters. The respondents herein have paid house rent allowance (HRA) in favour of the petitioner till 2011. Thereafter proceedings are started against the petitioner for recovering amounts of HRA wrongly paid to the petitioner. An order also came to be passed by the respondents against the petitioner directing the petitioner to repay the entire amounts of HRA received by her. The said order was called in question by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.419/2011, which came to be disposed of by observing thus:-

(2.) Sri V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at an earlier point of time, similar point was raised against the petitioner in the year 1998 and at that point of time, vigilance enquiry was done by the respondents; the Vigilance Officer has submitted his report in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to HRA amounts, inasmuch as the NAL is a Constituent Unit of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is a registered society and the same does not fall in the category of Institutions specified in Ministry of Finance. Thus, according to the petitioner's counsel, since the matter is already gone into by the respondents and as the respondents have continued to pay HRA amounts in favour of the petitioner based on the Vigilance Officer's report of 10.2.1998, it is not open for the respondents to recover HRA amounts paid in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Sri Vishnu Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition by contending that no order is passed in favour of the petitioner by the respondents on the said subject till passing of the impugned order and therefore, the Vigilance Officer's report dated 10.2.1998 cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner. In other words, Sri Vishnu Bhat submits that HRA amounts are wrongly paid in favour of the petitioner and therefore respondents are entitled to recover the amounts so paid wrongly.