R. K. MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that gazetted Quarter No. 6-A, GO Block, was allotted to his father, who was Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time, and the petitioner after the year 1989 being Inspector Telecom in the police department had also been sharing the said accommodation with his father. The father of petitioner retired in the year 1993. It is averred that even after retirement, the father of petitioner continued to avail the said accommodation being the retired migrant employee from the Valley and the petitioner was only sharing the said accommodation with this father, as such, even after the retirement of his father, he was entitled to get the House Rent Allowance during the period he was sharing the said accommodation with his father. Therefore, order No.2039 of 2014 dated 02.08.2014, impugned herein, whereby it has been directed to deduct an amount of Rs.3,96,814/- on account of HRA from the leave salary of petitioner, has wrongly been issued and the same is required to be quashed. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) Petitioner pleads that Rule 6(h)(iv) of J&K Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance) Rules, 1992 provides that in cases where husband/wife/parents, children two or more of them being State Government servants or employees of Central Government, Autonomous Public Undertakings, or Semi-Government Organizations share accommodation allotted to another Government servant, House Rent Allowance will be admissible to only one of them at their choice. He, thus, pleaded that since the quarter-in-question had been allotted in the name of his father, as such in terms of the said Rule, he (petitioner) was entitled to the House Rent Allowance.

(3.) Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents averring therein that after the retirement of petitioner, an amount of Rs.3,96,814/- was found outstanding against the petitioner on account of HRA. Since the petitioner had failed to place on record any document indicating that the quarter-in- question, i.e., Quarter No. 6-A, GO Block, was not under his possession/occupation and in which capacity he had been paying rental of said quarter, as such vide the order impugned it was directed to deduct an amount of Rs.3,96,814/- on account of HRA from the leave salary of petitioner.