DY DIRECTOR Vs. MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No. 1007/2001 has been subjected to challenge by the respondents including the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. The direction of the Tribunal was that the applicant (the first respondent herein) to be paid the House Rent Allowance ("HRA" for short) from April 1996 onwards. The Tribunal had held that this was because he had been residing separately from his wife not on his violation but on account of enstrangement and since he was prevented from sharing accommodation with his wife in the quarter allotted to her, he was constrained to have a separate establishment and hence could not have been denied the benefit of HRA.

(2.) A Central Government Employee is entitled to the benefit of HRA. However, in certain circumstances, he becomes ineligible to claim such benefit. R.5(c)(iii) of the H.R.A. Rules deals with such situation, which reads as follows:--

(3.) The applicant had a case that he was having an unhappy married life from 1992 onwards. He was getting HRA, but as his wife had been allotted a quarter, the benefits were stopped and steps were taken to recover the amount of HRA he had drawn. At that time the applicant had approached the Tribunal and by an interim order in O.A.No.759/1993 such proceeding were got stayed. However, O.A.No. 759/1993 was dismissed, reserving the right of the applicant to move afresh after the judgment of the Family Court. It is submitted that on the basis of a joint statement filed between the husband and wife, pointing out that they were living separately from April 1996, (in O.P.(HMA) 160/1996) by the order dated 29.2.2000 the Family Court had dissolved the marriage between the applicant and her wife.