House rent allowance is compensatory in nature and not a profit-making allowance, and employees cannot claim house rent allowance if they refuse to occupy the official accommodation provided by the company.

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J.

(1) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2) CHALLENGING the Judgment and order dated 1st February, 2005 passed by the learned Trial Judge in the writ application as moved by the employees of the present appellants claiming their legal right to enjoy their house rent allowance irrespective of their refusal to stay in the accommodation allotted by the present appellants, whereby the learned Trial Judge allowed the writ application directing payments of house rent allowance on the ground that before stopping the house rent allowance they were not heard personally with liberty to decide the issue by hearing the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 because the other writ petitioner No. 6 since was transferred from the concerned area did not urge his grievance in the writ application, this appeal has been filed by, the Company, Coal India Limited, a Government Company along with its officers assailing the said Judgment under appeal.

(3) THE fact of the writ application in a nutshell is to this effect. The writ petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 while working in the Executive posts at dankuni Coal Complex situated at Dankuni, District-Hooghly, admittedly was provided with official accommodation. But they sought permission to construct their own houses in the area in question which was granted by the authority and on taking loan from the said Company they constructed their own house and started to live therein by leaving official accommodation with a right of enjoying house rent allowance till the impugned decision of the writ application was taken in the year 1999. By the impugned decisions which were taken in respect of the respective writ petitioners being the decision dated 8th July, 1999, the appellant company refused to pay any house rent allowance as they did not agree to occupy the quarters allotted to them despite the offer letter of such occupation was issued.

(4) THE writ application was opposed by filing affidavit-in-opposition by the company and the affidavit-in-reply was filed by writ petitioners. It was the case of the appellant company before the writ Court that in view of the House Rent Allowance Rules as approved by the Board in its meeting dated 8th May, 1972, the clause 3.1 of the said House Rent allowance Rules was applied to pass the impugned decision and clause 6 had no applicability. It was the further case before the writ Court that since the house rent allowance is in the nature of compensatory allowance, the writ petitioners cannot make any profit from that by claiming house rent allowance despite the fact of providing accommodation to them in companys quarters which they have refused. The learned Trial Judge, however; allowed the writ application on the premises that there was no observance of principle of natural justice by the mode of hearing before cancelling any benefit, namely, house rent allowance as accrued to them and as was being enjoyed by them so long. The impugned decision was quashed by the learned Trial Judge directing that the appellant company would be entitled to decide the issue afresh on hearing the writ petitioners and a reasoned order to be passed to that effect. The learned Trial Judge further directed to release all arrear house rent allowances with effect from 1999 till the date of judgment by easy instalment on fixing the instalment terms.

(5) IN this appeal the appellants have taken the points assailing the said Judgment under appeal, namely, 1]. clause 3.1 of House Rent Allowance Rules applicable in the field as it has overriding effect upon the clause 6 thereof and the field activity of clause 3. 1 and clause 6 thereof are completely on different area; 2]. that the company has already constructed houses to accommodate their officers and staff and if those quarters remain vacant, the company will suffer loss; 3]. that for exigency of the work it is the appellant companys decision that all executives should remain in the companys quarters within th