The court upheld the State's authority to set ceilings on House Rent Allowance for employees, affirming that such policies are valid unless proven unconstitutional or arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the legality of Memo. vide. No. 26/09 dated 14.09.2009, issued by the Secretary of Dwarhatta Rajeswari Institution, P.O. Dwarhatta, District Hooghly, a Non-Government Aided Educational Institution (hereinafter referred to as 'the school'). The memo. communicated the decision of the Managing Committee of the school to stop the payment of the petitioners’ House Rent Allowance (in short, HRA). The petitioners also challenge the justification for this decision and seek a directive to the respondents to pay their arrears and current HRA.

2. Before addressing the contentious issue, it would be prudent to outline the essential facts, as projected in the writ petition.

3. The petitioners are approved assistant teachers at the school. The husband of petitioner No. 1 is employed with the Ministry of Railways, while the husband of petitioner No. 2 is employed with the Geological Survey of India.

4. In 2009, the school authorities instructed both petitioners to submit the pay slips of their husbands. In response, the petitioner no. 1 made a representation to the respondent no. 5, requesting clarification on the reasons for issuing such an instruction. In reply, the respondent no. 5, by a letter dated 26.06.2009, informed petitioner no. 1 that the pay slip was required for submitting the grant-in-aid and salary requisition. Subsequently, in another letter dated 27.06.2009, referring to two memoranda vide nos. 31-SE(B)/IM-5/2003 dated 15.01.2003 and 97-SE(B)/IM- 24/2001 dated 07.03.2001, the respondent no. 5 informed the petitioner no. 1 that, in accordance with the aforementioned memoranda, her husband’s pay certificate was required to be submitted.

5. In view of these circumstances, both petitioners submitted a letter dated 17.07.2009 to the respondent no. 5, referring to a memorandum dated 08.11.1988 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. In the letter, they contended that their husbands are governed by their respective independent service conditions, and therefore, the HRA received by them cannot be merged, linked, or adjusted with the petitioners’ HRA.

6. As evident from the memorandum dated 20.08.2009 forwarded to the petitioners, upon receiving the petitioners' representation, the issue was referred to respondent no. 4 for his opinion. Subsequently, by a memorandum dated 14.09.2009, the respondent no. 5 informed the petitioner no. 1 that the Managing Committee had unanimously resolved to stop the payment of her HRA, effective from October 2009, and instructed her to adhere to G.O. No. 97-SE (B) dated 07.03.2001, issued by the Government of West Bengal, School Education Department, Budget Branch. A similar course of action was taken with regard to the petitioners' representation. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.

7. The State resisted the petition by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The defence taken therein, in brief, is that, within the limits of the resources available to the State, it formulated a policy to provide HRA to its employees and the teaching and non-teaching staff of Non-Government Aided Educational Institutions. Under this policy, a combined cumulative ceiling limit of HRA for both husband and wife, regardless of their places of employment, was set at Rs. 2000 per month, which was later increased to Rs. 6000 per month. The State contended that HRA is a compensatory allowance and, as such, cannot be treated as a source of profit. It is provided to compensate for the lack of amenities available to the employee, and once accommodation is provided to the employee, they cease to be entitled to it. While HRA is a statutory right, it is subject to certain restrictions. The petitioners did not and cannot challenge this policy of the State.

8. The record does not contain any affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by either of the petitioners.

9. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate repres