STATE OF U.P. Vs. RAM JI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dtd. 22/11/2022 by which the writ petition filed by the sole respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "writ petitioner") was allowed and direction was issued to refund Rs.3,46,804.00 to him. The amount aforesaid is the sum deducted by the State from his pensionary benefits towards house rent allowance alleged to be wrongly paid to him while in service. The writ court in issuing the said direction, has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), 2015 (4) SCC 334.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner retired on 30/6/2016 from the post of Teleprinter Operator at Collectorate, Allahabad upon attaining age of superannuation. During his service tenure, he was allotted an official accommodation in the year 1981. According to the case of the appellants, the writ petitioner did not deposit house rent in terms of the allotment letter and at the same time was also given house rent allowance every month until his retirement. On 3/10/2016 i.e. after retirement, the A.D.M, City, Allahabad passed an order holding that the petitioner had received Rs.2,88,644.00 as house rent allowance in an irregular manner and in addition, according to the norms, Rs.58,260.00 would be rent due till 30/6/2016, consequently, he was directed to deposit Rs.3,46,904.00 in government treasury within three days failing which, the same would be recovered from his pensionary benefits. As the writ petitioner did not deposit the amount in government treasury, it was deducted from his pensionary benefits. The representation filed by the petitioner was rejected by the District Magistrate by order dtd. 22/5/2020 impugned in the writ petition.

(3.) Shri Ramanand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that under Government Order dtd. 15/12/1981, the writ petitioner was liable to pay rent of the government accommodation he was occupying during his service tenure. He further submits that in case, an employee occupying a government accommodation does not pay rent then he would not be entitled to house rent allowance. It is submitted that by mistake the State paid house rent allowance to the writ petitioner but as soon as the said mistake was discovered, the Additional District Magistrate, City passed the order directing the writ petitioner to refund the amount and when it was not refunded, the amount was rightly deducted from the pensionary benefits. It is sought to be contended that the judgement of the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih would not apply to the facts of instant case as that was a case where there was wrong fixation of salary while the instant matter relates to house rent allowance and is governed by a government order.