Delhi High Court
Dr. D.S. Singh vs The Indian Council Of ... on 15 March, 2018
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15.03.2018
+ W.P.(C) 3683/2015
DR. D.S. SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. T.N. Singh with Mr.
Vikas K. Singh, Advocates
versus
THE INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate
.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only
grievance that the petitioner has is with regard to the rate at which
House Rent Allowance (HRA) is presently paid to the employees
of Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (in short "Institute").
2. There is no dispute raised before me by the counsel for the
parties that the said Institute is governed by respondent no.
1/Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that since the institute
is located in District-Mirzapur (U.P.), the HRA ought to be paid to
the employees at the rate of 10%.
3.1 It is the petitioner's submission that HRA, in fact, is being
wrongly paid to the employees of the Institute, being paid at the
rate of 20% by showing that it is located in District-Varanasi
(U.P.).
4. Pertinently, the petitioner has retired from service and has
received HRA at the rate of 20%. This fact is affirmed by the
petitioner, who is present in Court. According to the petitioner, he
received HRA at the rate of 20% as at the relevant time, the
Institute had its office located in District-Varanasi (U.P.). In
support of this submission the counsel for the petitioner has, inter
alia, relied upon the land records (Annexure P-6) and the sale deed
dated 1.5.1996 (Annexure P-7). Counsel for the petitioner says
that in the lease deed dated 10.11.1995, the location of the
Institute's office is shown contrary to the land records, in District-
Varanasi (U.P.).
5. I have asked both the counsel for the petitioner and the
petitioner, who is present in Court, as to the relevant rules,
whereby, the HRA is paid and is linked to the location of the
Institute. Counsel for the petitioner says that the relevant rules are
not available with him.
5.1 It is pertinent to note that there is no reference to the rules in
the writ petition as well.
6. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with
the direction to respondent no.1/Indian Council for Agricultural
Research (ICAR) to look into the matter since it involves outflow
of funds and thereafter, if necessary, take requisite follow up steps.
In case, HRA has been wrongly paid, the same will be recovered in
accordance with law.
7. I may only note that counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2
vehemently objects to the assertion advanced on behalf of the
petitioner that the Institute is located in District-Mirzapur (U.P.).
As indicated above, respondent no. 1/ICAR will examine the
matter and, thereafter, pass a speaking order. A copy of the same
will be furnished to the petitioner.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 15, 2018
Nk/rb
