NIRMAL KUMAR VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Administrative Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 1.12.1992 for a period of five years or till the attainment of the age of 62 whichever was earlier. He was an officer of the Indian Postal Service after having been selected in All India Allied Services Examination in 1959. He was serving as Chief Post Master General, Maharashtra in the rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India. At that stage he was offered the post of Member (Administrative) of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He was given an appointment at Patna Bench vide order dated 01.12.1992. The petitioner joined the Patna Bench on 20.01.1993. It is the case of the petitioner that he suffered ill health in Patna from the period March 1993 to September 1993 and had to take extra ordinary leave for 39 days without pay and allowances on medical grounds. On this score an amount of Rs. 1560/- which was paid to the petitioner on account of allowance for accommodation was ordered to be recovered from him by the Vice-Chairman of the Patna Bench after the petitioner was transferred from Patna to Bombay.

(2.) One of the prayer in the writ petition is with regard to the payment of the compensatory allowance for accommodation for 39 days extra ordinary leave on medical ground while functioning as Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench. The second prayer of the petitioner is with regard to the payment of the compensation in lieu of non-occupation of Government accommodation for his stay at Chandigarh while functioning as Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The third grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner was posted at Jodhpur he hired a private accommodation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month for the period 15.2.95 to 29.2.96, whereas, the respondent had reimbersed only at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month for the said period. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be reimbersed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month as per the guidelines applicable to the case of the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) In support of his contention petitioner who appeared in person had contended that from the bare reading of pay as defined in the Fundamental Rules 9(21) (a), HRA is not a part of the pay. The same is reproduced below: