LALRENGLIANA KAWLNI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by 15 Government employees challenging Memorandums dated 20.7.2012 and 29.11.2010 issued by the Government of Mizoram. By the said office Memorandums, it has been held that if a Government employee is staying in the quarter allotted to his/her spouse or parents or brothers or sisters he/she is not entitled to House Rent Allowance (in short HRA). Pursuant to the said office Memorandums, the Government also issued various letters to the employers of the present petitioners demanding recovery of whole amount of money from the petitioners which were paid to them during the entire service period towards HRA. One such order is at Annexure-5 of this writ petition issued on 6.6.2012. By the said letter, the Directorate of Information and Public Relation was directed by the General Administrative Department to inform as to whether P.C. Lalrinthangi, UDC working in the establishment was residing in Government quarter allotted to his / her husband / wife /sister /brother /mother /father Mr. Lalsangzuala Ralte w.e.f. 1.10.2008. A list was annexed to the said letter containing names of all those employees who are alleged to be staying in government quarter allotted to their spouse/parents/brother or sister and yet they are drawing HRA from the government. The names of all the petitioners appear in the said list and respective dates are given since when HRA is being received by them. The name of the petitioner, namely, H. Ramthianghlima appears at Sl. No. 22 and it is shown as if he has been drawing HRA since the said date. Direction has also been issued thereby for deduction of arrear HRA already drawn w.e.f. 16.6.2005. It is the case of the writ petitioners that before creation of Union territory or the State of Mizoram, the employees posted in this part of the country were drawing the benefit of HRA even if the employees used to reside in the Government quarters allotted to his/her spouse or parents or brothers or sisters and only the person in whose name the said quarter was allotted was not permitted to draw HRA and rather some fees were collected from him/her for maintenance. The same system continued even after the area had attained the status of Union territory and thereafter as a full-fledged State. But all on a sudden, by the Notification in question, the official respondents have adopted an adverse view. The respondents have sought not only to discontinue paying them HRA on the ground that they have been residing in the Government quarters with their spouse, parents or others but also for recovery of the whole amount in arrear drawn by them so far since beginning. Drawing my attention to Sl. No. 2 of Annexure- 5, the learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner, namely, H. Ramthianghlima was initially appointed as subject teacher for higher secondary school on contract basis on 16.6.2005 and was regularly appointed w.e.f. 1.3.2008 yet by the impugned letter under reference a demand for recovery has been made w.e.f. 16.6.2005. Fact remains that no teacher on contractual appointment is entitled to HRA and so the said petitioner No. 1 did not avail any benefit of HRA till there was recovery on 8.3.2008 and such decision of the Government to make recovery from his salary w.e.f. 16.6.2005 is unauthorized and beyond jurisdiction. According to the learned senior counsel the Notification dated 29.11.2010 annexed as Annexure-7 to this writ petition was never circulated among the employees and no one was aware as to whether such a decision was taken by the Government disentitling from claiming HRA even if they stay with their spouse/parents in the Government allotted quarter. It came to light only after Memorandum dated 20.7.2012 was issued proposing punitive action of recovery. According to the learned senior counsel, the petitioners did not make any demand for payment of HRA but the same was paid to them as a routine measure by the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Authority and such routine practice was going on for over a long time as mentioned above. The learned senior counsel has relied on a note under FRSR part IV in regard to Dearness Allowance and HRA. The said Rule is quoted below :

(3.) According to the learned senior counsel the petitioners are covered by the note under the said clause and as such they are entitled to HRA by way of choice.