Delhi High Court
R.S. Mishra vs Ranglal Jamuda & Ors. on 21 January, 2009
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Reserved on: January 9th, 2009
Date of Decision: January 21st, 2009
CONT.CAS(C) 14/2008
R.S. MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
RANGLAL JAMUDA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa &
Mr. N.B. Joshi,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
1. The present contempt petition has been filed under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging
willful disobedience by the respondents of the Division Bench
judgment and order dated 19th September, 2007 wherein this
Court had directed that the petitioner was entitled to double
House Rent Allowance (in short 'HRA') for the period from 30th
October, 2000 to 30th June, 2003. The amount was directed to be
paid to the petitioner within eight weeks and if the needful was
not done, respondents were directed to pay interest on the said
amount at the rate of 12% per annum. The relevant portion of
the Division Bench judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
5. The petitioner is a resident of Gurgaon and,
therefore, when his services were terminated at
Rajkot, there was no reason or occasion for him
to stay at Rajkot. After the termination of his
services he had shifted to his residence at
Gurgaon and filed writ petition in the High
Court of Delhi challenging his termination. From
the date of his termination in the year 1988 till
October 2000 when orders for reinstatement
were passed and he was transferred to Imphal,
he remained at Gurgaon, namely, the place of
his residence. In this backdrop, in the peculiar
facts of this case denying benefit of double HRA
to the petitioner on the ground that his family
did not stay at Rajkot during the period he was
in Imphal is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The
rationale behind grant of double HRA to such
employees, who are posted to North-Eastern
region or at Andaman and Nicobar Islands, is
that on their posting to these difficult stations,
they are not expected to take their families
along with them. That is the reason why posting
to these places is called difficult posting, as it is
not normally feasible to keep the families along
while working at such stations. In order to
ensure that such employees join these difficult
stations, the benefit of HRA is extended to their
families as well, who are allowed to remain at
the last station of posting. It is not in dispute
that the petitioner otherwise fulfilled all the
conditions for grant of double HRA. When we
look into the spirit and rationale behind granting
of this benefit, as explained above and also the
circumstances in which the petitioner's family
could not be expected to be at Rajkot, the
petitioner was clearly entitled to the benefit of
double HRA. It was the action of the respondent
terminating the services of the petitioner way
back in 1988 when he was posted at Rajkot that
compelled the petitioner to leave that station
and come to his home town. The said
termination has been found to be illegal and that
is why after the judgment of this Court the
petitioner was reinstated in service. It would be,
in these circumstances, too onerous a condition
to compel the petitioner to leave his family at
Rajkot and proceed to Imphal in order to get
double HRA. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the petitioner was entitled to double HRA
for the aforesaid period, i.e. 30.10.2000 to
30.6.2003. We accordingly set aside the
judgment of the Tribunal, allow the prayer made
by the petitioner in the OA filed before the
Tribunal and direct the respondents to give the
benefit double HRA to the petitioner for that
period. The amount payable shall be worked out
within 8 weeks and paid to the petitioner. If the
needful is not done within the aforesaid period,
the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest
on this payment at the rate of 12% per annum.
(emphasis supplied)"
2. The respondents argued that after the Special Leave
Petition filed by them was dismissed, they issued a cheque dated
25th August, 2008 for an amount of Rs.61,761/- representing
double HRA payable to the petitioner for the period from 30th
October, 2000 to 30th June, 2003 along with interest at the rate of
12% per annum. However, the petitioner refused to accept the
same on the ground that the respondents have not complied with
the Division Bench judgment and order dated 19th September,
2007 inasmuch as they had offered HRA at the Rajkot rate
instead of the Delhi rate.
3. The petitioner, in rejoinder, stated that from an overall
reading of the entire judgment, it would be apparent that the
petitioner was entitled to HRA at Delhi rate. Petitioner also drew
the attention of this Court to the fact that the respondents had
filed a CM bearing No. 17144 of 2008 before the Division Bench
seeking a clarification as to whether the petitioner was entitled to
double HRA at the rates applicable to Rajkot or Delhi. However,
the said application was dismissed by the Division Bench.
4. After perusing the judgment and order dated 19th
September 2007, this Court is of the view that though there was
no categorical and specific direction by the Division Bench of this
Court to pay double HRA at the Delhi rate but the intent behind
the order was that the petitioner would be entitled to double HRA
as he had worked in the North-East while his family resided at
Gurgaon. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the
respondents should pay double HRA to the petitioner at the Delhi
rate within a period of eight weeks from today.
5. Since in contempt proceedings, respondents can only be
found guilty for willful disobedience and contumacious conduct,
this Court is of the considered view that the respondents are not
guilty of contempt and, therefore, the notice of contempt is
discharged but with the aforesaid direction to pay. With these
observations the present petition stands disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
January 21, 2009
sb
