Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Amarjit Kainth on 10 February, 2010
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3934/2008
% Date of decision : 10th February, 2010.
UOI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mohd. Mannan, Advocate.
versus
AMARJIT KAINTH ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anant Garg, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
1. The respondent, Mr. Amarjit Kainth, is an employee of Union of India,
Ministry of Defence. He was allotted house No. T-2/2, Uri Enclave, Delhi Cantt
while he was serving with GE (WS&AC), Delhi Cantt. It appears that the said
allotment was made in 1970s.
2. On 16th November, 1998, he was transferred and posted from GE
(WS&AC), Delhi Cantt. to Headquarters Western Air Command, Additional Chief
Engineer (Liaison), Subrato Park, Delhi Cantt.
3. The respondent applied for according retention of the aforesaid property.
Sanction was granted upto 15th January, 1999 vide letter dated 2nd February, 1999.
On the very next date, i.e., 3rd February, 1999, the petitioner informed the
respondent that his allotment stands cancelled with effect from 16th January, 1999
and he had become an unauthorized occupant. Thereafter eviction order was
passed and the petitioner has been evicted.
4. The Estate Officer has in a separate order held that the petitioner was liable
WPC No.3934/2008 Page 1
to pay damages/penal rent of Rs.3329.95 per month along with interest @ 6% per
annum. The said order has been upheld by the ld. Additional District Judge in his
order dated 1st May, 2006 and appeal of the respondent has been dismissed.
5. The petitioner-UOI is aggrieved by the direction given by the ld. Additional
District Judge in the order dated 1st May, 2006 that the petitioner would take into
account house rent allowance (HRA), which was deducted from the respondent's
salary while determining the total dues. Review application filed by the petitioner
before the learned District Judge for recall/deletion of the said direction was
dismissed vide order dated 21st November, 2007.
6. During the course of hearing before this Court today, learned counsel for
the petitioner has produced before me and relied upon copy of general rules and
orders relating to payment of HRA to employees. Clause (ix) thereof reads as
under:
"(x) A Government servant, who, on transfer, has been
permitted to retain Government accommodation at the old
station on payment of normal rent or penal rent or retains
Government accommodation unauthorisedly on payment of
market rent, etc., will not be entitled to HRA at the new
station for the period beyond 8 months from the date of his
transfer."
7. The aforesaid Clause stipulates that a government servant who on transfer
unauthorisedly retains official accommodation will not be entitled to HRA at the
new station after a period of eight months from the date of his transfer. In other
words, the government servant will be entitled to HRA for a period of eight
months even if he is in unauthorized occupation of the government
accommodation at his original posting for which he is liable to pay market rent.
WPC No.3934/2008 Page 2
Respondent will be entitled to benefit of the said clause and the impugned orders
passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 1st May, 2006 and 21st
November, 2007 are modified to the extent indicated above.
Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
VKR/P
WPC No.3934/2008 Page 3
