The ceiling limit on HRA specified in para 11 of the memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009 is not applicable to married employed couples who are compelled to reside separately in two separate residential accommodations.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred challenging, inter alia, a memorandum dated 1st August, 2013 issued by the respondent no.3 by which the petitioner’s claim for drawal of full House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as HRA) was refused relying upon para 11 of the Finance Department memorandum no.1691-F dated 23rd February, 2009.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Lecturer at Vidyasagar College for Women, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said college) on 1st December, 1999. Subsequent thereto, she was placed in the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography of the said college. The pay of the petitioner was fixed from time to time and up to July, 2006, the petitioner was receiving HRA amounting to Rs.1448/-per month. The petitioner got married with Dr. Anindya Datta on 30th June, 2006, who was employed at Netaji Nagar College, Kolkata. After marriage the petitioner continued to draw Rs.1448/- as HRA and her husband drew an amount of Rs.786/- towards HRA and the total HRA drawn by both was of Rs.2234/-. The petitioner stopped drawing HRA on and from December, 2007, as her husband joined the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Jadavpur, Kolkata and he drew the entire HRA from his new institution which was under the Central Government. On and from 10th August, 2010, the petitioner’s husband left his service at Kolkata and joined Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi as an Associate Professor and that as such he had to arrange separate accommodation at New Delhi and the petitioner, accordingly, became entitled to HRA as she was compelled to maintain a separate accommodation for herself in Kolkata. As such, the petitioner claimed HRA from the college and by a resolution dated 1st December, 2010 the Governing Body of the said college allowed the petitioner’s claim with effect from 10th August, 2010 and forwarded the petitioner’s claim to the respondent no.5 by a memorandum dated 14th December, 2010. Subsequent thereto, by a memorandum dated 1st August, 2013 issued by the respondent no.3 the petitioner’s claim towards HRA was refused observing, inter alia, that “there is no scope to deviate from the G. O. regulated by para 11 of Finance Deptt. Memo. No. 1691-F dt.23.3.2009 under any circumstances in this regard.” The relevant part of para 11 runs as follows :-

“11. House Rent Allowance – With effect from the 1st April, 2009, the house rent allowance admissible to a Government employee shall be 15% of his revised basic pay, i.e., aggregate of the Band Pay plus Grade Pay and NPA, if any, in the revised Pay Structure subject to a maximum of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The ceiling of house rent allowance drawn by husband and wife together shall also be raised to Rs. 6,000/- per month.

The existing terms and conditions of drawal of house rent allowance by Government employees living in their own house or in a rented house shall continue to apply.”

3. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her husband are unable to share the same roof since the husband is posted at a different place outside the West Bengal, which is at a distance of about 1300 kms from Kolkata and in the backdrop of such fact there is no restriction upon the petitioner to avail full HRA in terms of para 11 of the memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009.

4. He further submits that the impugned memorandum dated 1st August, 2013 does not reveal any independent application of mind on the part of the concerned respondent and the petitioner’s claim has been rejected by a cryptic order without considering the scope and ambit of para 11 of the memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009.

5. According to Mr. Roy, para 11 of the memorandum dated 23rd February, 2009 does not mention any provision regarding denial of such benefits to the employee concerned who is compelled to maintai