Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arup Ratan Gooptu vs Coal India Ltd. & Ors on 17 September, 2024
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
Form No. J (2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
MAT 1329 of 2022
Arup Ratan Gooptu
vs.
Coal India Ltd. & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, Senior, Advocate
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Arjun Gooptu, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Advocate
Ms. Anupa Banerjee, Advocate
Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Advocate
Mr. Nilarnab Paul, Advocate
Heard on : 17.09.2024
Judgment on : 17.09.2024
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated May 20,
2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPA 3787 of 2012.
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
2. Appellant filed a writ petition assailing two letters of his
employer namely, letters dated September 16/20, 2011 and November
5/9, 2011.
3. Appellant as the writ petitioner was essentially seeking House
Rent Allowance (HRA) for the six months immediately on his transfer.
Learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order negated such
claim.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that,
appellant is entitled to HRA. HRA of employees of the respondent no.1 is
governed by the HRA Rules. He draws our attention to the HRA Rules and
in particular to Rules 3.1 and 3.4 thereof.
5. Referring to Rule 3.4 of the HRA Rules, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that, two components, which entitles
the appellant to HRA, stands satisfied in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. According to him, the two components are appellant
taking over duty in the new station and that, the appellant was not allotted
the accommodation by the company at the new station.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that,
appellant was promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Sales Manager re-
designated as Chief Manager on August 18, 2008 and was transferred to
Eastern Colafields Limited (ECL). Appellant was released on the same day.
Appellant joined ECL, Sanctoria on October 22, 2008. Appellant was put
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
up at Seetalpur meant for Executives in the rank of General Manager and
above intermittently for 9 days between the period October 20, 2008 to
February 4, 2009. Appellant paid for his stay in such guest house.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, guest house
accommodation was meant for Executives much above the rank of
appellant. In any event, appellant was not allotted such guest house. He
was put up at such guest house. Therefore, the occupation of the appellant
at the guest house, cannot be considered to be one of an allotment in
terms of the HRA Rules particularly Rule 3.4 thereof.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that,
appellant subsequently stayed at a hotel. He discharged his duties as
Chief Manager at the relevant place. Appellant thereafter made a
representation for the payment of the HRA by a letter dated February 4,
2009 followed by another letter dated July 1, 2009. He submits that, the
authorities responded by a letter dated July 23/24, 2009 stating that, the
claim was processed and that same was sent to the competent authority
for approval. Appellant was requested to apply for an accommodation.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the
HRA Rules do not provide for an application for accommodation. According
to him, the allotment of accommodation is to be made by the employer and
not on an application by the employee. In the facts of the present case,
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
question of the appellant as an employee applying for accommodation does
not arise.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant was made to apply in a
prescribed form for accommodation. He refers to the application form. He
submits that, such application form was submitted by the appellant at the
request of the employer. Such submission of form does not negate the
claim for HRA of the appellant.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant refers to the
impugned writings of the authorities, as annexed to the writ petition. He
submits that, the authorities purported to deny the claim for HRA
principally on the ground of Rule 3.1, non adherence to Rule 3.4 by the
appellant and the application of the appellant for accommodation. He
submits that, none of those grounds are tenable.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant draws attention of
the Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the employer. He
submits that, in such affidavit the employer sought to improve the case
disclosed in the two impugned letters.
13. Relying upon (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405 (Mohinder
Singh Gill and Another Versus The Chief Election Commissioner, New
Delhi and Others), learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that, the employer cannot be permitted to improve on the materials as
appearing contemporaneously by an affidavit. He refers to various
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
paragraphs of the affidavit. He submits that, additional grounds are
sought to be introduced for the denial of the HRA. According to him, the
appellant is entitled to HRA and the learned Single Judge erred in not
grating the same.
14. Employer is represented.
15. Appellant was an employee of Coal India Limited. Appellant was
promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Sales Manager re-designated as Chief
Manager on August 18, 2008 on transfer to Eastern Coalfields Limited
(ECL). CIL released the appellant on the same day. Appellant joined ECL
Sanctoria on October 22, 2008 at the promoted post. Appellant put up at
the Seetalpur Guest House of the ECL for the period from October 20,
2008 to February 4, 2009. Admittedly, appellant stayed in such guest
house for a period 9 days and paid for such stay. Thereafter, appellant
stayed at the hotel of his choice.
16. Appellant claimed HRA which was denied by the employer by
the two impugned writings in the writ petition.
17. Parties refer to Rules 3.1 and 3.4 of the HRA Rules governing
the employment of the appellant, which are as follows:-
"3.1 An employee who refuses or surrenders accommodation
offered to him by the Company shall not be eligible for house rent
allowance.
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
3.4 If an employee who is drawing house rent allowance, is
transferred to another station, involving change of residence and
leave behind his family at the old station, he shall be eligible for
house rent allowance at the new station, for a maximum period of
6 months, in the following manner, from the date of release in the
old station, provided that he has taken over duty in the new
station, and not been allotted accommodation by the Company at
the new station, and also provided further, that he does not draw
separately any house rent allowance for this period, at the new
station.
In case, he has been allotted a residence at the new station
(place of posting), his entitlement to house rent allowance at the
old rate, will be limited only to the period of joining time:
(i) During the Ist 2(two)
months: At the Same rate at which it was
drawn at the old station.
(ii) For the next
4(four) months: At the rate at which it was being
drawn at the old station or the
maximum amount that would
have been admissible to him at
the new station, had he taken a
residence on rent, at the new
station, whichever is less."
18. 3.1 prohibits HRA payment to an employee who refuses or
surrenders accommodation offered to him by the Company.
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
19. HRA is receivable on satisfaction of the conditions laid down in
Rule 3.4.
20. According to the appellant, the guest house at which, he was
put up, did not constitute an allotment of accommodation made by the
employer. With respect, we are unable to accept such contention.
21. Guest house belonged to the employer. Admittedly, appellant
stayed at such guest house. He stayed in such guest house qua an
employee of the employer. Such guest house may be meant for other
Executives who are higher in rank to him. Nonetheless, employer allowed
the appellant to stay in such guest house. There is no material on record
to suggest, let alone establish that the employer asked the appellant to
leave the guest house. Appellant left such guest house on his choice.
22. The permission of the employer granted to the appellant to stay
at a guest house of the employer is sufficient allotment of accommodation
within the meaning of Rule 3.1 and 3.4 of the HRA Rules of the Company.
Appellant, left the guest house voluntarily. Therefore, he became
disentitled to receive HRA by reason of his own conduct.
23. Appellant applied for HRA which was considered at a given level
of the employer. Administrative approval was accorded. Finance approval
was not forthcoming. Appellant was required to apply in the prescribed
form which the appellant did.
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
24. These actions of both the employer and the employee do not
vest the appellant a right to receive HRA as the Rules of the HRA
disentitles an employee to receive HRA when such employer refuses or
surrenders the accommodation offered to him. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, appellant was allowed to occupy the guest
house on transfer which he voluntarily surrendered within 9 days.
25. Mahinder Singh Gill & another (supra) is of the view that the
additional material cannot be brought on record in order to supplement a
decision already taken. The decision must stand or fall on the reasons
appearing from the writing which discloses the decision.
26. In the facts of the present case, two letters were challenged by
the appellant. Both the letters negated the claim that HRA made on behalf
of the appellant. Both the letters contain adequate and valid reasons for
non grant of HRA. It refers to the HRA Rules. The authorities stated that,
since the appellant was allowed to stay in the guest house and since the
appellant voluntarily left the guest house, appellant was not entitled to
HRA.
27. The view taken by the authorities as disclosed in the writings
denying the claim for HRA, of the employer, is plausible. It draws
sustenance from the HRA Rules of the Company.
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
MAT 1329 of 2022
28. Learned Single Judge considered these aspects of the matter
and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by the impugned judgment
and order.
29. In view of the discussions above, we find no ground in the
appeal.
30. MAT 1329 of 2022 along with all connected applications are
dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
31. I agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
CHC/Dd
Signed By :
CHINMOY
CHAKRABORTY
High Court of
Calcutta
18 th of September
2024 04:43:07 PM
