Delhi High Court
T.V.Gopalakrishnan vs Uoi & Ors. on 15 February, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 15th February, 2011
+ WPC 8579/2009
T.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bakshi, Advocate with
Ms.Bhanita Patawari, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate
WPC 2866/2010
K.VENKATESAN SI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.B.Ravi, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Gaurav M.Liberhan, Advocate
WPC 2920/2010
ASHWATHACHARI, CONSTABLE (GD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.B.Ravi, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. The three writ petitioners are employed
permanently with Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the
claim is for payment of house rent allowance (HRA) for the
period reckoned 6 months' after their attachment with the
Ministry of Home Affairs till they remained attached with the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
2. Whereas the claim of writ petitioner
T.V.Gopalakrishnan and Ashwathachari has yet to be settled
and money paid to him, K.Venkatesan was paid HRA @ `
3,657/- per month from 23.12.2000 till 06.08.2004 i.e. 6
months after his attachment with the Ministry of Home Affairs
and till he remained attached to the Ministry, which amount is
sought to be recovered in 20 installments from the monthly
salary paid to him.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent in each case do
not dispute that the claim of the petitioners that when they
were attached to the Ministry of Home Affairs no Government
accommodation was allotted to them is correct.
4. Thus, the claim of the petitioners has to be
adjudicated on the basis that no official accommodation was
provided to them for the periods they remained attached with
the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is also not in dispute that each
petitioner had surrendered the official accommodation allotted
to them by CRPF when they were attached to the Ministry of
Home Affairs.
5. Each petitioner had informed the Government that
either a Government accommodation be provided to them or
house rent allowance should be paid and that in response, two
petitioners Ashwathachari and T.V.Gopalakrishnan it was
informed that they were permitted outside living permission
but without HRA.
6. Dealing with similarly placed officers of Central
Industrial Security Force (CISF), in view of Rule 61 of the CISF
Rules, 2001, in the decision reported as 150 (2008) DLT 420
Jaspal Singh Maan vs. UOI & Ors. a coordinate Division Bench
of this Court had held that it was the duty of the Government
to provide either residential rent free accommodation or house
rent allowance in lieu thereof. The Division Bench noted
decisions of the Supreme Court on the point that house rent
allowance and city compensatory allowance are not
concessions but form a component of the total salary and are
part of a service condition.
7. In an unreported decision dated 17.05.2010 in
W.P.(C) 20700/2005 Hari Om Mudgil vs. UOI & Ors., pertaining
to a CRPF Sub-Inspector attached to RAF Indira Gandhi Airport
and not paid house rent allowance after 6 months of joining
and till he remained attached, the writ petition was allowed
directing house rent allowance to be paid.
8. Suffice would it be to state that transfer, posting
and attachment to the cadre controlling Ministry is not in the
hands of the Jawans of CRPF and thus we see no reason why
house rent allowance be not paid to them if the department to
which they are attached does not provide residential
accommodation to them. It would be a most arbitrary situation
if these Jawans remain with CRPF they would either be
provided a residential accommodation or in lieu thereof would
be paid house rent allowance and upon the fortuitous
circumstance, not of their desire, on being attached to a public
sector undertaking or the cadre controlling Ministry would lose
said benefit.
9. The writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of
restraining the respondents from effecting any recovery from
K.Venkatesan and issuing a mandamus to the respondents to
pay Ashwathachari and T.V.Gopalakrishnan house rent
allowance for the period reckoned after 6 months of their
attachment with the Ministry of Home Affairs till they remained
attached with the said Ministry. The amount be paid over to
them within 12 weeks from today.
10. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 15, 2011
mr
