SAVITRI M KURUP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the common question of law and fact arise for consideration in both the writ petitions, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this order. In W. P. No.2171/2009 (s), the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the employer) have challenged the validity of the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the employer has been directed to release the amount which has been recovered from the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) in the said writ petition on account of House Rent Allowance. The employee has preferred W. P. No.2488/2010 against the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which it has been held that she would not be entitled to House Rent Allowance from March 2002 till her retirement.

(2.) FACTS necessary for decision of the controversy involved in the writ petitions are that the employee was appointed on13.5.1975 on the post of Steno Grade III. In the year 1984 while employee was posted at Bhopal she submitted an application to Estate Secretariat Govt. of M.P., Bhopal for allotment of the ----- accommodation from the State Government, as no accommodation was available with All India Radio. The employee was alloted quarter in Bhopal by the State Government, which was occupied by her from 10.10.1984. The rent of the aforesaid accommodation was recovered from the employee @ Rs.260/ per month under fundamental Rule 54 B. However, the employer stopped the payment of House Rent Allowance from March 2002 onwards. The employee submitted a representation which failed to evoke any response from the employer. By communication dated 1/4.6.2007 the employee was informed that a sum of Rs.1,59.242/ is recoverable from her on account of House Rent Allowance. The employee thereupon approached Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an original application. The Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2008 inter alia held that admittedly, the State Government had recovered the rent of the accommodation which was alloted to the employee. The House Rent Allowance @ Rs.95/ was not paid to the respondent on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on her part. The Tribunal quashed the order of recovery, however, it was held that the employee would not be entitled to House Rent Allowance from March 2002 till the date of her retirement. Learned counsel for the employer while inviting our attention to para 5 of the office memorandum dated 8.11.1988 relating to House Rent Allowance submitted that in view of para 5, the employee was not entitled to House Rent Allowance and the same was rightly directed to be recovered from her and the Central -----

(3.) MUNICIPALITY, Port Trust, etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her.