Delhi High Court
Union Of India, Through General ... vs Ramesh Kumar Rajput on 12 January, 2021
$~S-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 10531/2020 & CM APPLs.33330-31/2020
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Satpal, Advocate.
Versus
RAMESH KUMAR RAJPUT .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Gaya Prasad, Advocate.
% Date of Decision: 12th January, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05th
February, 2020 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') in OA No
1045/2019.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitoner states that the CAT vide the
impugned order has held that since the Respondent did not stay in the
Government Accomodation, he was entitled to the benefits given to an
officer who chooses to stay in a private accommodation.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitoner submits that the directions passed
by the CAT is contrary to Railway Board's Policy/ PS No. RBI/ /46/2000,
according to which, the Respondent herein is not entitled to House Rent
Allowance as he was posted as a Senior Section Engineer, and hence
belonged to Essential Category of Officers. He further states that as per
Policy/ PS No. RBI/ /46/2000 dated 16th March, 2020, such employees are
not entitled to HRA, as they have as of necessity, to live in the railway
accommodation at the station to enable them to discharge their duties
effectively during an emergency.
4. A persual of the paper book reveals that the applicant/respondent had
not taken the railway accommodation as according to him, he was entitled
to a higher grade accommodation (Type-IV).
5. CAT in the impugned order has recorded that the
applicant/respondent had given an undertaking that there would be no
delay on his part in attending to any emergency due to not staying in the
railway accommodation, as he was living in the immediate neighbourbood.
The relevant portion of the order passed by the CAT is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"6. It is an admitted fact that the applicant did not occupy the
accommodation that was allotted to him by the respondents. The
applicant has stated that the private accommodation he stayed in
was right next to the Railway track which has not been denied by
the respondents. No office memorandum or any other document
has been filed by the respondents in support of their contention
that it was binding on the applicant to stay in the government
accommodation provided by the Railways. All that was needed
was that he should be available in an emergency. The applicant
gave an undertaking that there would be no delay on his part in
attending an emergency due to living in outside accommodation.
In these circumstances, the respondents have not been able to
clarify as to why it was necessary for the applicant to stay in the
allotted quarter.
7. In the absence of any specific OM, it can then be assumed that
the only requirement was that he should be present in an
emergency. The applicant has clearly stated that the
accommodation he took was right next to the Railway Line and
also gave a certificate that he would always be present in an
emergency.
8. In light of the above, I am of the view that there is merit in this
OA. Impugned orders dated 25.06.2015 and 13.11.2018 are set
aside. Since the applicant did not stay in government
accommodation, he is entitled to the benefits allowed under
various rules and OMs for staying in private accommodation. The
respondents are directed to pay whatever dues he was entitled to
as per rules by virtue of stay in private accommodation. Any dues
deducted against the rules should also be refunded to the
applicant."
6. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity requiring the
intereference in writ jurisdiction in the order passed by the CAT.
Accordingly, the present writ petiton along with pending applications are
dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
ASHA MENON, J
JANUARY 12, 2021
KA
