JASWANT SINGH Vs. SECRETARY GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER after remaining posted at different places was transferred to Jaipur in June, 1984. His wife Smt. Prem Lata, an Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, on her transfer from Delhi joined her husband, the petitioner herein in July, 1984. The petitioner hired a house in Jaipur on a monthly rent of Rs. 1550/ -. Her wife was entitled for reimbursement of house rent allowance from the Bank and therefore, a formal lease deed was executed between the Bank and the owner of the premises taken on rent by the petitioner. This formal lease deed was executed only for the purpose that the benefit of house rent allowance could be given to the wife of the petitioner. The necessity to get a formal lease deed executed arose for the reason that the Bank at the relevant time did not have accommodation of its own. The petitioner claimed house rent allowance for the period he remained with his wife under the same roof in the rented house through the lease deed executed between the owner of the premises and the Bank. He was indeed given house rent allowance but the moment the respondent department realised that the petitioner was not entitled to house rent allowance, issued a letter dated 03. 07. 1997 (Annexure-A2) and followed it up by yet another letter dated 04. 03. 1999 (Annexure-A5) vide which it was ordered that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any house rent allowance for the period mentioned above and vide a subsequent letter (Annexure-A3) he was asked to return the house rent allowance already taken by him. It is these two letters which were challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal (herein after referred to as `the Tribunal') which, however, found no merit in the petition filed on his behalf as the same was dismissed vide order dated 10. 12. 2003. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition filed on his behalf as the same was dismissed vide order dated 10. 12. 2003. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 5 of the FRSR Part (V) that has been applied in denying relief to the petitioner is not applicable, in as much as, the wife of the petitioner was neither allotted any Government accommodation nor the State Bank of India, was covered under the definition of Semi Government Organization. With a view to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above, it will be use to reproduce Clause (iii) of Rule 5 of the FRSR the same reads thus:- Clause (iii) "his wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an autonomous public undertaking or semi Government organisation such as Municipality, Port Trust, etc. whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her. "

(3.) IN so far as the case of the petitioner with regard to non- refund or recovery of the house rent allowance already paid to him is concerned, the present case, cannot be equated with a mistake in the matter of calculation of salary etc. , in which, an employee may not have made any misrepresentation. All judgments which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking relief with regard to order of recovery pertain to such facts where department itself, had made a mistake in calculating some or other financial benefit to an employee there being, no misrepresentation made by the employee. IN the present case, the petitioner was sure that he was residing with his wife and further that his wife was not paying rent to the owner of the rented premises with whom direct lease agreement was made between the employer namely; the State Bank of INdia and the owner of the rented premises. The claim of the house rent allowance in a situation as mentioned above, borders on cheating or fraud. The petitioner, in our view, would not be entitled even to seek quashing of the order directing him to pay the amount which he had taken towards the house rent allowance.