JOLSING RANI Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main issue in the instant writ petition is only with regard to the claim of entitlement of 15% House Rent Allowance (HRA) as per the Office Memorandum dtd. 1/12/2017, which is allowed to employees serving in the Greater Shillong Area. The petitioner has alleged that inspite of being presently posted and working in the Upper Shillong Area i.e., the Office of the BDO, Mylliem C&RD Block situated at 6th Mile, Upper Shillong, which falls under the Greater Shillong Area, he has not been given the benefit of 15% HRA.

(2.) Ms. T. Sutnga, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Office Memorandum dtd. 1/12/2017, on recommendation of the Fifth Meghalaya Pay Commission, the rate of House Rent Allowance (HRA) was fixed at 15% for Greater Shillong Area, 12½% for District Headquarters and 10% for other areas. She submits that in the said Office Memorandum itself, it has been provided in the note appended to the table that rates for Shillong would be applicable for Shillong and Urban Agglomeration as per the areas notified by the State Urban Affairs Department. She contends that the petitioner by virtue of his office being situated within the Shillong Urban Agglomeration Area i.e., Greater Shillong which consists of Shillong Municipality, Cantonment Areas and 10 other census towns including Mylliem C&RD Block, he is eligible to draw HRA at 15% of his basic pay.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that though the office, where the petitioner is posted falls under Mylliem Circle, Mylliem C&RD Block, his place of work is situated at 6th Mile, Upper Shillong, which will entitle him to 15% HRA, but however, the respondents have clarified that as per the appointment order, the posting is at Mylliem, which does not fall under the Greater Shillong Area. It is further submitted that, the address, location and area of the Horticulture Office, Mylliem Circle, as per an RTI query has been shown to be located at 6th Mile, Upper Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, and that employees and other similarly placed officers working in this location, are drawing HRA at 15%. The learned counsel therefore submits that the writ petitioner has been deprived of his legitimate benefit as granted by the Office Memorandum, and as such, the respondents are liable to allow the petitioner to draw his HRA at 15% of his basic pay.