UMESH MISHRA Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. Sankar Lodh appearing for the appellant and learned CGC Mr. Biswanath Majumder as well as learned counsel Mr. S. Mahajan appearing on behalf of the respondents-National Institute of Technology (NIT, for short).

(2.) The present writ appeal has come to be filed seeking to challenge the judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.517 of 2014 on 28/2/2018.

(3.) Essentially two contentions were raised before the Hon'ble Single Judge. The first relating to the claim of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Professor in the NIT, Agartala for entitlement of two HRAs in terms of the notification dtd. 24/9/2003 (Annexure-2). In this regard, the Hon'ble Single Judge has dealt with this issue in paragraphs- 26 and 27. Clearly the said notification as found by the Hon'ble Single Judge has no applicability to the case of the petitioner on facts. The said notification dealt with persons who are otherwise appointed outside the Northeast and are transferred to the Northeast and then the benefit of two HRAs under the conditions stipulated therein would arise. In the case at hand, there is no doubt that the petitioner, an appellant herein, was substantially appointed to NIT, Agartala. Consequently, there is no question of acceding to his demand for two HRAs. A further contention in support of the aforesaid claim of double HRA is based on an alleged precedent set in the case of Professor P.K. Bose, the former Director of NIT, Agartala. We are of the considered view that the Hon'ble Single Judge has correctly noted the principle that this Court is constrained to say that payment to the former Director could not create a precedent which can be relied upon for the reason that Professor Bose had never been appointed on regular basis to the NIT, Agartala, as distinct from the petitioner who is holding a substantial post at the same institution.