ANNAPURNA PANIGRAHI Vs. PRINCIPAL KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is directed against the recovery of the House Rent Allowance paid to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is a Librarian in Kendriya Vidyalaya Her husband is working as a Deputy Manager in the State Bank of India, Hyderabad. The petitioner was in receipt of the House Rent Allowance since the time she was posted in Hyderabad from August, 1989. The Internal Audit party obtained the information that her husband was also in receipt of the House Rent Allowance and both the petitioner and her husband were residing in a rented accommodation. Therefore, the internal Audit party gave a note on 9-11-1995 stating that since the petitioner's husband was entitled to reimbursement of rent, the House Rent Allowance paid to the petitioner by the respondent organisation should be recovered. On the basis of this note, an order was issued on 13-11 -1995 to the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 39,421/- being the House Rent Allowance paid to her from August, 1989 to October,1995. The Petitioner contends that this action is untenable as the relevant rule does not authorise the disallowance of House Rent Allowance except where the employee and the spouse share official accommodation and they are government servants. The respondents has filed a counter affidavit justifying the action with reference to Rule 6(4) of the Appendix X of the Accounts Code of the Kendriya Vidyalaya. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that according to this Rule, even if the spouse is a bank employee, the petitioner will not be entitled to House Rent Allowance when her spouse was in receipt of the same allowance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me the general Rules and Orders applicable to the Central Government servants and stated that this clarified the issue. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner and her husband live in a rented house and that the husband is also paid the House Rent Allowance by the Bank in which he is employed. The question is whether this will preclude the petitioner from claiming the House Rent Allowance. Rule 6(4) provides:

(3.) A comparison of these Rules brings out the underlying principle namely that when one of the spouses is given House Rent Allowance it meets only partially the rent payable for the accommodation, and therefore, there is no bar to the other spouse getting the House Rent Allowance to meet some part of the expenditure for the same accommodation. This situation can arise only in the case of a hired accommodation, and therefore, the rule that both the spouses cannot obtain House Rent Allowance when they share allotted accommodation can only refer to the accommodation provided by the Government or Institution. It must be remembered that in such cases, usually House Rent Allowance is not given but there is a cut in the pay towards the Standard Rent for the accommodation and no further expenditure is involved for obtaining the accommodation. It is this difference which is significant and justifies the claim of the petitioner for House Rent Allowance even though her husband is also in receipt of House Rent Allowance in respect of a house which is hired by them for residing together. I am convinced that theaudit note had extended the rule to a situation to which it is not applicable arid was therefore wholly unjustified. The impugned order for recovery of Rs. 39,421/-, is therefore, quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.