Harvinder Singh Rana vs National Seed Corporation Ltd.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5575 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: August 4, 2015

+                            W.P. (C) 6149/2013

HARVINDER SINGH RANA                                     ..... Petitioner

                        Through:       Mr. H.P. Chakraborty, Mr. S.K.
                                       Arya, Adv. & Ms. Kanchan
                                       Chauhan, Advs.
                        versus

NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION LTD.                          ..... Respondent

                        Through:       Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
                                       with Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. (Oral)

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner inter alia

challenging the orders dated August 6, 2010, June 5, 2012 and

February 18, 2013, with a further prayer in the nature of a direction to

the respondent to pay House Rent Allowance (HRA) to the petitioner

with effect from August 1, 2010 to January 31, 2011 and refund of

amount of Rs. 4,66,542/- recovered from the settlement and retirement

dues with interest @ 18% p.a.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with the

respondent-Corporation. On November 23, 1993, the wife of the

petitioner being an employee of UGC, was allotted a Quarter No. 23-

L, Sector 4, Gole Market, New Delhi-110001. In the month of June

2010, the respondent-Corporation had asked the employees including

the petitioner to submit the residential address in the performa, which

the petitioner did on June 25, 2010. It is his case that for the month of

August 2010, he got less salary on account of the fact, the respondent

had stopped HRA. He retired from the services on normal

superannuation on January 31, 2011, when without issuing a show

cause notice, the respondent had deducted an amount of Rs. 4,66,542/-

from the retirement dues. It is his case that the Fundamental Rules

together with the Supplementary Rules (FRSR) relating to the

payment of HRA is not applicable to the respondent-Corporation, at

least till 2010. According to him, the Government of India

Rules/Instructions are not applicable automatically to the respondent-

Corporation, nor any resolution has been relied upon, that the same

had been adopted by the respondent-Corporation. Meaningfully read,

non-payment of HRA for the period before 2010 is justified and the

same could not have been recovered by the respondent.

3. On the other hand, the respondent, in its counter affidavit has

submitted that the respondent-Corporation is wholly owned by the

Government of India under the administrative control of Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India. As per the NSC Board's meeting

held on April 28, 1965, an approval was given to the application of the

Government of India Rules/Instructions to the staff of Corporation.

Hence, the employees of NSC are being regulated in accordance with

the Government of India Rules and Regulations, where the

Corporation is not having its own Rules and Regulations. That apart,

it is the stand that on December 20, 1989, the Memorandum was

issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, stating that a

Government Servant shall not be entitled to HRA if his/her

wife/husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by

the Central Government, State Government, Autonomous Public

Undertaking or Semi Government Undertaking such as Municipality,

Port Trust etc. whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she

resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her. Hence, the

employees of the NSC were not eligible for HRA if their spouses were

allotted Government accommodation and were residing with the

spouses in the same.

4. Mr. H.P.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner would

rely upon the communication made by the respondent-Corporation

with the Senior Audit Officer wherein a stand has been taken by NSC

that since the NSC does not get any financial/budgetary support from

the Government of India to meet its recurring expenditure on salaries

and allowances payable to its employees and follows the

recommendations of the Pay Commission pursuant to the approval of

its Board of Directors in supersession of earlier resolutions/orders, the

decision of the Board of Directors in the 14th Meeting held on April

28, 1965 cited by the Audit is not applicable as on date. He has also

drawn my attention to the Notification issued on June 14, 2010 to say

that it is for the first time, in the year 2010, that, such a decision has

been taken. In other words, since the period in question is before

June, 2010, the employees were entitled to HRA. Mr.Chakraboty has

also referred to a decision in the case of Shanti Devi in terms of

Annexure III to the rejoinder, to contend that, in her case also an issue

of payment of HRA was raised in a similar manner as her husband

was allotted a Government accommodation. He states that HRA in

her case was restored by dropping the audit objection. According to

him, similar is the case of the petitioner and he could not have been

discriminated.

5. Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent, on the other hand, would reiterate the case as set up by the

respondent in the counter affidavit.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is noted that

way-back in the year 1965, it has been decided by the respondent-

Corporation that employees of the NSC would be regulated in

accordance with the Government of India Rules/Regulations where

the Corporation is not having its Rules/Regulations. There is no

dispute on the fact that the Government of India's OM dated

December 20, 1989 stipulates that if a wife/husband of an employee is

allotted Government accommodation at the same station by the

Central Government, State Government, Autonomous Public

Undertaking or Semi Government Organization, such as,

Municipality, Port Trust etc., the Government employee would not be

entitled to HRA. In view of the 14th Meeting of the Board dated April

24, 1965, the Government of India's OM dated December 20, 1989

shall be applicable. The office instructions dated June 14, 2010 was

issued as during that period, it has come to the notice of the authorities

that the employees are drawing HRA in contravention of the

provisions of the FRSR, and by said circular, the information was

sought by the author of that circular, calling upon the Heads of

different divisions of the respondent-Corporation to furnish the

requisite information. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the

respondent-Corporation is an entity formed by the Government of

India under the administrative control of Ministry of Agriculture. The

sweep of instructions dated December 20, 1989 would include the

offices of the Central Government, State Government, PSUs and Semi

Government organizations. Surely, the respondent-Corporation being

an entity of the Government of India, would get covered in the OM

dated December 20, 1989.

7. Further, the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner is

also untenable in view of one of the impugned orders dated August 6,

2010, wherein, the name of Ms. Shanti Devi also featured. In other

words, qua her also, HRA has been stopped. Further, the impugned

order was passed on August 6, 2010. The petitioner did not challenge

the same till his retirement on November 30, 2011 or even thereafter.

The petition has been filed only on August 2, 2013 after almost 1½

years from the date of superannuation and almost three years from the

date, of order i.e August 6, 2010. The respondent, on the strength of

the order dated August 6, 2010 has stopped paying HRA to the

petitioner. That apart, they have recovered the HRA wrongly paid to

the petitioner from the retiremental dues. In fact, the present petition

would be also hit by delay and laches.

8. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner has not made out

a case for interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.

10. No costs.

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

AUGUST 4, 2015 akb