Allahabad High Court
Purendu Kumar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 May, 2024
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87941
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19199 of 2022
Petitioner :- Purendu Kumar Tripathi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the respondent no.3 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 7 & 8 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 08.02.2022 passed by respondent no.,
B. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct the respondents, to pay House Rent Allowance to the petitioner at the rate payable to the employees of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation. In the light of full bench judgment of the Uma Shankar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.
C. .......
D. ......."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Prathmic Vidyalaya Patnava, Block- Niyamtabad, District- Chandauli by order dated 16.08.2016 passed by respondent no.3, which is equivalent and the institution governed under the provision of the U.P. Basic Education (Teacher) Service Rule, 1981 as well as the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978. He further submits that the petitioner was got transferred from Prathmic Vidhyalaya Patnava to Prathmic Vidhyalaya Jivadhipur, Block- Niyamtabad, District- Chandauli. He next submits that the petitioner is claiming House Rent Allowance at the rate payable to the employees who are working within the limit of Varanasi Municipal Corporation. He further submits that the institution in question is situated at a distance less than eight kilometers from the Varanasi Municipal Corporation.
5. Further, he submits that the Full Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.19106 of 2004 (Uma Shanker Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others), decided on 18.09.2015, have considered the issue and answered the following questions, which are quoted as under:-
"Question (a)- The Government Order dated 10 December 2002 was in the context of the facts of a particular educational institution, namely, Om Prakash Jwala Devi Higher Secondary School, Shuklaganj and does not lay down a binding principle of interpretation in regard to the admissibility of HRA under the terms of the Government Order dated 15 December 1981 and consequential Government Orders which have been referred to in the earlier part of the present judgment.
Question (b)- The issue as to whether the Government Order dated 10 December 2002 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 will not arise in this reference.
Question (c)- The judgment of the Division Bench in DIOS Mirzapur Vs. Sri Rajwanta Singh (supra) dated 22 November 2007 is affirmed as laying down the correct principle of law. The relevant principle for the purposes of computing and determining the admissibility of HRA in terms of the relevant Government Order dated 15 December 1981 and the Government Orders which have been referred to in the present judgment, is the place of work. If the place of work falls within a notified municipal area or though beyond municipal limits is within a distance of eight kilometers of the municipal limits, HRa would be payable at the rate as applicable in respect of the municipal area. The district within the institution is situated would not be material so long as the institution or place of work is within the municpal limits or within a distance of eight kilometers beyond the municipal limits."
6. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid judgment as well as the facts of the present case.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court with regard to house rent allowance, the impugned order dated 08.02.2022 cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same is hereby set aside.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the house rent allowance at the rate applicable to the similarly situated person in Varanasi Municipal Corporation.
9. Mandamus is issued to the respondent-authorities to pay the House Rent Allowance to the petitioner at the rate payable to the employees of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Pravesh Mishra
