Allahabad High Court
Con. 840470302 Narendra Pal Singh ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 8 November, 2013
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
1. Heard Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioners are constables and Head constables in provincial Armed Force (hereinafter referred to as "P.A.C.") posted in different Battalions. The petitioners no. 1 to 44 are posted in 44th Battalions, P.A.C., Meerut and the petitioners no. 45 to 50 are posted as Head Constables and Constables in 4th Battalion P.A.C., Dhoomanganj, Allahabad.
3. Initially, a Government Order was issued to the petitioners, that the "house rent allowance" (hereinafter referred to as 'H.R.A.') would be admissible to petitioners if government's residential accommodation is not made available to them and they are residing in their own houses or rented accommodations. The rate of house allowance is different, with respect to place of posting, which is not of much relevance for the purpose of present writ petition.
4. The sole question, which arises for consideration in the present case is, "whether petitioners have rightly been denied H.R.A. on the ground that they are residing in Barracks in Battalions campus, which is treated to be an official accommodation/residential house allotted to petitioners, disentitling them for H.R.A.
5. It is not in dispute that in furtherance of Police Commission's report for the year 1960-61, facility of residential accommodation for police officials was considered by State Government. It decided to keep a particular number of police officers in barracks, while rest were permitted to stay in residential house. Following standards were laid down:-
Sl.
No
Rank/Designation
Residential
Houses
Barracks
1
Inspector
100.00%
----
Sub Inspector
100.00%
----
Head Constable (Spl. Police)
100.00%
----
Head Constable (Armed Police)
50.00%
50.00%
Constable (Armed & Civil)
33-1/3%
66-2/3%
Followers
100.00%
---
Police Ministry Force
100.00%
---
6. It goes without saying that residential houses could be either those allotted by Government to the employees or those employees who have privately lived for residing, of their own. In the case of latter category of houses, H.R.A. is admissible, undisputably.
7. The aforesaid standards were revised vide Government Order dated 29th February, 1980. In respect of Head Constables (Armed Police) the residential accommodation was increased to 75% instead of 50%, leaving 25% in barracks while for constables (Armed and Civil), the residential accommodation was increased to 50% in place of 33-1/3% leaving 50% in barracks.
8. All these petitioners admittedly have not been allotted any residential house and are staying in barracks. They have however been denied H.R.A. on the ground that since they are residing in barracks, which is an official residential accommodation, hence they are disentitled for H.R.A. It is this order dated 2nd March, 2012 passed by Commandant, 44th Battalion, P.A.C., Meerut, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.
9. It is evident from the own showing of respondents as also the Government Order dated 29.2.1980, which is annexure no. 6 to the writ petition, that there is a distinction between 'residential houses' and 'Barracks'. The members of police force including constables of Armed Police and Civil Police are required to stay in barracks for the own benefit of State, so that, a sizeable number of police force including PAC, is always available, in ready condition, whenever required for effective control of law and order. The police officials available in barracks can be deployed within a short time whenever required.
10. It is not disputed that in barracks, members of police force are not entitled to stay with their family members. They have to share common accommodation alongwith a large number of other colleagues. A barrack, as such, is not allotted to any individual police official. A barrack consists of a big room, in which facility to stay is provided to police officials, alongwith other police officials, where all the times they are in control of superior officers and incharge of the Barracks. Stay in barracks is regulated by department through-out. It is not an "official residential accommodation" which is contemplated in lieu of "house rent allowance" under various Government Orders. The term "government residence" has been used in various Government Orders in respect to H.R.A., which, in my view, would be referable to "residential accommodation" which is independently allotted to a member of police force, in which he can stay alongwith his family members and not 'barrack'. The residence in barracks cannot be equated with Government residential accommodation, which would disentitle H.R.A. The view otherwise taken by the respondents is patently illegal and goes against very concept of 'H.R.A.'
11. The term "Barrack" has been defined in various dictionaries, as a place where military personnel/ soldiers are housed. In American Heritage dictionary of English Language, (Fourth Edition), updated in 2009, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, it is defined as under:-
1. A building or group of building used to house military personnel. Often used in the plural.
2. A large, unadorned building used for temporary occupancy. Often used in the plural. (From French baraques, barracks, from Spanish barracas, soldiers' tents or huts).
12. According to Collins English Dictionary published by Harper Collins, Barrack stands to mean:-
1. (Military) to house (people, esp soldiers) in barracks.
13. The Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary defines Barracks is as under:-
1. A building or group of buildings for lodging soldiers, esp. in garrison.
2. Any large building in which many people are lodged.
14. It thus appears that a place which jointly houses soldiers in garrison, is commonly known as barracks but that is not so in respect of "residential house" which is allotted to a Government servant, though normally owned by Government, but once allotted, its egress and ingress, and living conditions etc., are all arranged and controlled by the Government servant and his family members. There is no day to day routine interference of Government or the department, in respect of the manner, in which one is to live in such accommodation. However, in the barracks, entire stay is regulated.
15. Moreover necessity of keeping a sizeable number of police officials in barracks is to help the Government and for its convenience so that whenever a situation demands, those officials are always available for deployment without wasting any time. They are normally in ready condition which is not the position when the government official is residing in residential house.
16. Further, it would be very harsh to contend that, on one hand government and the department, for its own convenience and benefit, keeps an option of maintaining a sizeable number of police officials in barracks, depriving them of family life for the time being, as they cannot stay with their family members in barracks, yet and simultaneously, they should also be denied benefit of H.R.A. treating them at par with those who are allotted residential houses, and are allowed to stay thereat. It would amount to treating unequals as equal and at par. Two kinds of officials, those who are required to stay in barracks and those who are given residential houses, cannot be treated to lead a life at par, having different boarding and lodging conditions including advantages and disadvantages etc. Any other view would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as that would amount to treating unequals as equals.
17. Probably the State Government, when issued Government Order dated 29.2.1980, itself, was aware of this distinction, and, that is why it has treated 'barracks' and 'residential houses' differently. Unfortunately in the zeal of protecting revenue, at the cost of dutiful police officials, the authorities of the Government have proceeded to misinterpret and misapply the concept of H.R.A., and in their zeal, have gone to the extent of denying H.R.A. to those who are residing in barracks. This is palpably arbitrary, illegal and irrational. It infringes fundamental right of equality, enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
18. The view this court is taking can be looked into from one more angle. If the 'barracks' and 'residential houses' are treated at par, the question of keeping different ratio in these two categories would be illusory and imaginary. It can always be claimed by a person who is already allotted 'residential house' that since another one is allotted official accommodation i.e. barracks, there is no reason to reverse their position, by shifting former to a barracks and later to a residential house. This situation, if allowed, obviously would cause a serious and permanent injury to those who are asked to stay in barracks. This can neither be the spirit and intent nor the purpose and objective of the concerned Government Order.
19. Moreover if those residing in barracks, are entitled for allotment of a 'residential house', after sometime, this itself shows that the two have different connotations and consequences, otherwise the question of shifting a person from 'barrack' to 'residential house' and vice-versa, would not arise.
20. This court may point out that respondent no. 7 though has referred to Fundamental Rules 44 and 45, in the impugned order, but having gone through the same, I do not find that said provisions have any application in the case in hand. The 'barracks' do not answer the kind of residence governed by Fundamental Rule 45 and respondent no. 7 has completely misread, misapplied and misunderstood the scope thereof.
21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The State Government in particular and all the respondents in general are directed to provide appropriate H.R.A. to all the police officials including the petitioners, who are made to stay in 'barracks' and are not allotted appropriate 'residential accommodation' commensurating their status, rank and as per their entitlement. No costs.
