K.K.Verma & Ors. vs University Of Delhi & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 4800 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) Nos.3147/ 2007 & Conn.

%                                                21st October, 2013

1.    W.P.(C) 3147/2007
K.K.VERMA & ORS.                                ..... Petitioners
                          Through:   Ms. Rashmi Singla, Advocate.

                          versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS                         ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for University of Delhi.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for UGC.

2. W.P.(C) 3657/2007 SH. J.P.PANDEY & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Rashmi Singla, Advocate.

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for University of Delhi.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for UGC.

3. W.P.(C) 3583/2007 SH. JAGDISH PARSAD & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Rashmi Singla, Advocate.

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for University of Delhi.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for UGC.

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate for respondent No.4.

4.    W.P.(C) 3984/2007
SH. BALDEV & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners

Through: Ms. Rashmi Singla, Advocate.

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for University of Delhi.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for UGC.

Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for respondent No.4.

5. W.P.(C) 3401/2007 DELHI UNIVERSITY RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGD.

..... Petitioner Through

versus

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for University of Delhi.

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for UGC.

Mr. Navin Chawla, Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Kumar Jha, Advocate for respondent No.4.

Ms. Ritika Nagpal, Advocate with Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

+ W.P.(C) No.3147/2007

1. There is a very limited issue in this writ petition. The issue is

that can an employee get benefits of House Rent Allowances (HRA) while

continuing to occupy the accommodation provided by the employer/college.

2. Petitioners are employees of the respondent no.3/Hindu College

under the University of Delhi. Petitioners were allotted accommodations by

the respondent no.3-college. Petitioners occupied the accommodations and

also had received HRA. It is this illegally paid HRA which is sought to be

recovered by the respondent no.3-college which is being challenged and also

the refusal to grant HRA for the period of occupation of the

accommodations by the petitioners.

3. The law in this regard is now well settled by the recent

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal &

Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2012(8) SCC 417. Para 14 of this

judgment is relevant and the same reads as under:-

"14. We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment." (emphasis added)

4. The aforesaid para is indeed a very telling paragraph and it

revolves earlier observations made in different judgments by observing that

the moneys in question being tax payers' money, cannot be retained illegally

although moneys may have been paid under a mistake or bonafidely made or

made for any other reason, and mere fact that moneys have been illegally

paid is good enough reason to recover back the amounts which have been

paid without any legal sanction.

5. In the present case, nothing could be pointed out to me in the

form of any averment which is made in the writ petition that the petitioners

are entitled to continue to receive HRA though the accommodations are

granted by the employer and occupied by the petitioners/employees.

Therefore, the amounts received towards HRA have been received without

any sanction by law and the employer is entitled to recover the same and

prevent the payments in future.

6. Counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that

accommodations were in bad condition and petitioners had an animal

existence in the accommodations and therefore there is no reason not to

grant HRA. I have found this only a convenient argument to say the least

because if the petitioners felt that there was animal existence in the bad

quarters, then nothing prevented the petitioners from surrendering the

quarters for claiming the HRA. Employees can be surely asked in terms of

the contract to maintain the house and spend amounts towards maintenance,

and which expenditure would therefore become part of the rent, however,

only for that reason it cannot be argued that HRA will be paid although the

petitioners also have accommodations. If according to the petitioners they

were better of in receiving HRA instead of maintaining the accommodations

then petitioners should have simply walked out of accommodations by

surrendering the same and then claim HRA. This was admittedly not done

by the petitioners.

7. I may note that on behalf of UGC it is stated that the stopping

of the HRA where an employee has accommodation allotted by the college

is w.e.f 2.12.1998. Accordingly, if the petitioners have received any amount

towards HRA prior to 2.12.1998 such amounts will not be recovered by the

college or the UGC. May as in 1961 UGC had allowed both HRA and

allotment of accommodation, but surely UGC was entitled to change its

policy of not granting both, and which was accordingly done w.e.f 2.12.1998

by withdrawing HRA where the employee also had been allotted

accommodation. In 1998 the rental value would be much more than in 1961

and which would be one reason for not granting both HRA and the

accommodation.

8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

+ W.P.(C) No.3657/2007

This writ petition will also stand dismissed in terms of

observations made while disposing of W.P.(C) No.3147/2007. I may

mention that there is a relief claimed in this writ petition of the amounts to

be paid by the college-employer to the petitioners for charges incurred by

the petitioners towards maintenance and renovation of the accommodation,

however, when a query was put to the counsel for the petitioners to show

any document of the college or the UGC that petitioners are entitled to

reimbursement, no such document could be pointed out. This relief is also

therefore declined. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

+ W.P.(C) Nos.3583/2007, 3984/2007 and 3401/2007

Counsel for the petitioners states that facts in these cases are

almost identical to the facts of the aforesaid cases so far as the issues and

reliefs are concerned.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are also dismissed, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs. Costs of `2,000/- each in W.P.(C)

Nos.3147/2007, 3401/2007 and 3657/2007 have been received by the

counsel for respondent no.1.

OCTOBER 21, 2013                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne