THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. P. DEEPAK SINGH AND THE REGISTRAR, THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE official respondents in O.A. No. 71 of 2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, are the writ petitioners and aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.2013, made in the said Original Application, wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed the impugned proceedings, by and under which, his request for House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as "HRA") came to be rejected by holding that in terms of paragraph 1706(a)(ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as "IREM"), he is entitled for House Rent Allowance for the period he shares accommodation with another Railway employee. The facts of the case would disclose that the first respondent/original applicant joined the service of the Railway as Technician, Grade -III in the Salem Division at Erode Shed in the year 2006 and subsequently got promoted as Technician Grade -II and was working at Erode. The first respondent herein was accorded sanction for sharing the Railway quarters bearing Door No. 578A, which was allotted to one M. Krishnamoorthy, Technician Grade -I, by order dated 17.8.2009. It is the claim of the first respondent herein that though he has shared the accommodation with another Railway employee, he is entitled to have the HRA as per Indian Railway Establishment Manual and Codes (IREM). The representation submitted by him in this regard, was rejected on the ground that he has not submitted the plinth area occupied with the co -sharer and also on the clarification that the personnel occupying the quarters which is allotted on subsidized rent, are not entitled for HRA.

(2.) IT is the specific case of the first respondent/original applicant that as per 1706(a)(ii) of IREM, he is entitled to claim HRA on sharing of accommodation with another Railway employee and the denial of the same is unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the above said Manual.

(3.) THE Tribunal has taken into consideration the IREM 1706(a)(i) and held that paragraph 1706(a)(ii) is very clear and as per the said paragraph, the first respondent herein/original applicant is eligible to get HRA for sharing the accommodation with the original allottee, viz., M. Krishnamoorthy as he has not been provided with rent -free accommodation and in the light of the reasons, allowed the application as prayed for and challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.