Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anuja Gupta vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 September, 2024
Author: Jay Sengupta
Bench: Jay Sengupta
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
WPA 23805 of 2024
Anuja Gupta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Soumya Mukherjee.
For the State : Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta ld.AGP.,
Mr. Barun Chatterjee.
Heard on : 26.09.2024
Judgment on : 26.09.2024
JAY SENGUPTA, J:
1. This is an application, inter alia, praying for release of HRA, current and
arrear, in favour of the petitioner.
2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.
The petitioner is an approved Assistant Professor of Sociology at Mrinalini Datta
Mahavidyapith, Birati, Kolkata. The husband of the petitioner being an
employee of a private company is receiving House Rent Allowance (HRA) as a
separate engagement. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Higher Education,
2
C.S. Branch, relying on the Memorandum of the Finance Department (Audit
Branch), Government of West Bengal bearing No.5839-F(P) dated July, 09,
2012 and the Corrigendum Memorandum thereto bearing No.8012-
F(p2)/FA/O/2m/ 206/17(N.B.) dated December 27, 2018, stopped the payment
of HRA to the petitioner. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment
dated March 16, 2021 passed in WPA 1389 of 2018 (Mousumi Biswas & Ors.
State of West Bengal & Ors.) has quashed the aforementioned Memorandum of
2018. An appeal being MAT 1023 of 2021 (The State of West Bengal & Ors. vs.
Mita Majumder & Ors.) against the said judgment and order of the said
Coordinate Bench is pending. But, no order of stay has been passed in the said
appeal. Relying on this judgment, relief has been granted to a similarly
circumstanced individual by an order dated 21.05.2024 passed in WPA 14006
of 2024. In view of the same, the petitioner would be entitled to full HRA along
with interest on the arrears.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State denies the allegations
made in the writ petition and submits that if, at all, any relief is granted to the
petitioner, the same has to be subject to the decision of the appeal being MAT
1023 of 2021.
5. It appears that the above-referred memorandum of 2018 was quashed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. However, an appeal is pending over the
issue. But, no stay has been granted in the said appeal.
6. Relying on the said decision, another Coordinate Bench of this Court has
granted appropriate relief in favour of similarly circumstanced Assistant
Professor.
3
7. In the present facts which are quite similar, I find no reason to take a
different view.
8. Therefore, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to release
the HRA in favour of the petitioner, the arrear to be paid to the petitioner with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date on which it became payable till the date
of payment. Such payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the
date of communication of this order.
9. It is, however, made clear that the payment of HRA in terms of this order
is subject to the result of the above referred pending appeal.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
11. As affidavits were not called for, allegations contained in the writ petition
are deemed not to have been admitted.
12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the
parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta, J)
NB/90
