Rampal vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1680 Raj

[2023/RJJD/005091]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3692/2021

Shanker Lal Meena S/o Shri Tika Ram, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Meena, R/o Constable No. 231, 'e' Commandant, First Battalion, Rac, Mandore Road, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Jaipur.

3. The Commandant (First Battalion), Rac, Mandore Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12057/2020 Rampal S/o Shri Kumbharam Sou, Aged About 33 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village And Post Heeradesar, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General, Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Jaipur

3. Commandant (First Battalion) Rac, Mandore Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC Mr. Anil bissa, AGC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

13/02/2023

[2023/RJJD/005091] (2 of 5) [CW-3692/2021]

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter

is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in

Rajendra Mundel Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.12085/2020), decided on 01.02.2023, the

order reads as follows :-

"1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs :-

"a) Impugned order dated 16.10.2020 (Annex.3) issued by the Commandant, 1st Battalion, RAC, Jodhpur and the recovery proceedings, if any, initiated by the respondents during the pendency of this writ petition in pursuance of order dated 16.10.2020 (Annex.3) may kindly be declared illegal, unjust and arbitrary and same may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner.

b) respondent Commandant, 1st Battalion, RAC, Jodhpur may kindly be directed to regularly pay HRS to the petitioner alongwith other salary emoluments;

c) respondents may kindly be directed to refund all amount of recovery, if any effected against the petitioner during the pendency of this writ petition."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that petitioner and his wife both were appointed on the post of Constable, 1st Battalion, RAC, Jodhpur and petitioner's wife was allotted a residential accommodation on 10.04.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per law, the petitioner should have given the House Rent Allowance.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Division Bench at Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Yogesh Kumar Sharma & ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20183/2013), decided on 30.05.2017, the order reads as under :-

"1) The writ petition filed in public interest questions the grant of HRA to both husband and wife if in

[2023/RJJD/005091] (3 of 5) [CW-3692/2021]

service and none of them has availed government accommodation.

(2) In our opinion such petitions do not espouse any public cause. It is a matter of executive policy as to how house rent allowance has to be paid. If husband and wife are in government service and neither has opted for government accommodation, we see no absurdity, irrationality or irregularity in a rule which permits entitlement of both spouses to receive house rent allowance, notwithstanding the two residing together.

(3) The petition is dismissed.

(4) No costs. "

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court towards the notification issued by Government of Rajasthan Finance (Gr.2) Department dated 03.10.1989, the relevant portion of which, reads as under :-

"3. When not Admissible :-

The House Rent Allowance shall not be admissible to a Government Servants :

(1) (a) Who is occupying Government owned or leased or requisitioned accommodation or on subsidised rates in Government building i.e. Circuit House, Dak-bungalows, Hostels owned by Government etc.

(b)....

(c)....

(2) ......

(3) (a) Who shares Government accommodation, allotted rent free to another Government servant or who resides in accommodation allotted to his wife / her husband or to his / her parent /son / daughter by the Government or autonomous public undertakings or bodies or Corporation or semi-Government Organizations such as Municipalities etc.

(b) If his wife / her husband has been allotted family accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government or Autonomous Public undertaking or Body or Corporation or semi-Government Organization such as Municipalities etc."

[2023/RJJD/005091] (4 of 5) [CW-3692/2021]

5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that once the House Rent Allowance was granted on the application of the petitioner and wife of the petitioner has already been allotted Government accommodation i.e. House No.3 then the order dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Commandant, 1st Battalion, RAC, Jodhpur to recover the amount of H.R.A. paid to the petitioner is in accordance with the rules, the para 4 of the reply reads as under :-

"That as regards para no.4 of the writ petition, it is respectfully submitted that after confirmation of the petitioner on the post of constable Driver, he submitted an application for grant of H.R.A. as is payable to the permanent Government Servant through the Company commander 'Headquarter Staff' Company, 1st Bn. RAc, Jodhpur. On the said application after making necessary verification H.R.A. was granted in favour of the petitioner by the office of Commandant, 1st Bn. RAC, Jodhpur vide order dated 13.07.2017 w.e.f. 01.06.2017 in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 4(1) (1) of the Rules, 1989.

It is further humbly submitted that office of the Company Commander, 'Headquarter Staff', 1st Bn. RAC, Jodhpur vide its letter dated 21.09.2020 informed the office of Commandant, 1st Bn. RAC, Jodhpur that wife of the petitioner-Smt. Manju Sad, Female Constable NO.121 has already been allotted Government accommodation i.e. House No.03. Since the petitioner and his wife were posted at the same Headquarter, living in the Government Quarter, therefore, in terms of Rule 3(2)(b) of (as Revised on 31.12.2007) of the Rules, 1989 the H.R.A. earlier granted to the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled and the amount was ordered to be recovered, which is absolutely just, legal and passed in consonance with the relevant rules."

6. After seeing the record, which includes the judgment of Division Bench at Jaipur Bench and notification dated 03.10.1989, which governs the position, it is clear that the petitioner's wife had got the Government Quarter in year, 2014 and application of the

[2023/RJJD/005091] (5 of 5) [CW-3692/2021]

petitioner for grant of H.R.A. in year 2017 was misleading and beyond entitlement, thus, no case of interference is made out in the present petition.

7. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of."

Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to refute the

applicability of the aforequoted order.

In light of the aforequoted order, the present writ petitions

are dismissed in the same terms. All pending applications stand

disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 41-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)