Back
High Court Of Delhi
ISH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1971 of 1972
Decided On : 03/16/1982
HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE - Entitlement - Interpretation of Rules - Distinction between cases where rent is paid and cases where no rent is paid - HRA admissible on the basis of rent paid in cases where Government servant occupies premises as a tenant - HRA admissible on the basis of gross rental value in cases where Government servant occupies premises without paying rent - Circulars of 1947, 1948, 1952, 1955 and 1965 examined.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant/Deputy Director in the Central Water and Power Commission (CWPC), claimed HRA for two periods: (1) from 1-10-1963 to 3-9-1966 and (2) from 10-10-1969 to 31-12-1970. The respondents sought to recover the HRA paid to the petitioner on the ground that it was not admissible as the petitioner was residing in a house owned by his father. The petitioner challenged the recovery, contending that he was entitled to HRA on the basis of the rent paid by him to his father.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to HRA on the basis of the rent paid by him to his father. The court interpreted the relevant rules and circulars to hold that there was a clear distinction between cases where a Government servant paid rent and cases where no rent was paid. In cases where rent was paid, the HRA was admissible on the basis of the rent paid. In cases where no rent was paid, the HRA was admissible on the basis of the gross rental value of the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to HRA on the basis of the rent paid by him to his father? 2. Whether the respondents were justified in seeking to recover the HRA paid to the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to HRA on the basis of the rent paid by him to his father. The court interpreted the relevant rules and circulars to hold that there was a clear distinction between cases where a Government servant paid rent and cases where no rent was paid. In cases where rent was paid, the HRA was admissible on the basis of the rent paid. In cases where no rent was paid, the HRA was admissible on the basis of the gross rental value of the premises. 2. The court held that the respondents were not justified in seeking to recover the HRA paid to the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner had not been granted any HRA in excess of his entitlement.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the letter of the AG (CWM) directing the recovery of the HRA from the petitioner.
( 1 ) THE petitioner Ish Kumar, was at relevant time an Assistant/deputy Director in the Central Water and Power Commission (CWPC ). The Writ petition relates to an attempt on the part of the respondents to recover from the petitioner the House Rent Allowance (HRA) accorded to him in respect of two periods: (1) from 1-10-1963 to 3-9-1966 and (2) from 10-10-1969 to 31-12-1970 in the following circumstances.
( 2 ) ON 1-10-1963 the petitioner claimed to have taken on rent a portion of the house bearing No. XI 11606, Faiz Gani, Darya Ganj, Delhi from his father Ch. Bhagwan Dass. an advocate, at a rent of Rs. 135 per month. On 4-11-1963 he intimated this fact to the administrative section of the CWPC and requested that necessary authorisation to enable him to draw HRA might be obtained. In this intimation dated 4-11-1963 he stated that he was paying a rent of Rs. 135 p. m. to his father and that he was occupying a portion of the house from October, 1963. The plan of the premises and the rent receipt for the month of October. 1963 were also enclosed. The office called for, inter alia, the following clarification: (1) the production of the original assessment certificate of the house from the corporation; and (2) whether any non-member of the family (i. e. other than wife or husband, childern, step-children, parents, brothers and sisters ordinarily residing with and wholly dependant on the officer) was residing in the portion occupied by him. The petitioner gave a reply on 11-12-1963. In regard to the demand for the municipal assessment certificate he stated; "as far as I understand, the original assessment certificate is not required to be produced and is not demanded by the office in case of all such officers who produce rent receipts. The fact that my father, who is not dependent on me, happens to be a land-lord, should not make a difference in this case. I also understand that Shri P. C. Jain, Assistant Director has been drawing house Rent Allowance under similar conditions. "he also stated that himself, his wife and children and also his parents, three brothers and two sisters were residing in the house. Apparently these replies satisfied the administrative authorities and eventually the Accountant General (Commerce, Works and Mislellaneous) (for short, AG (CWM) issued an authority to the petitioner enabling him to draw HRA on the basis of the above rent of Rs. 135 p. m. paid by him. The petitioner continued to draw the HRA on this basis from 1-10-1963 till 3-9-1966 when he was posted out of Delhi.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was re-transferred to Delhi as Deputy Director in the CWPC with effect from 10-10-1969. On 17-10-1969 he gave the following instructions to the section officer in his Directorate. He stated that an application for sanction of HRA in the prescribed form was being enclosed in duplicate along with rent receipt for the month of October 1969 and a sketch in duplicate of the premises occupied by him. He added : "it may be stated that the house belongs to my father who is not dependent on me and I am paying rent as a tenant". A rent receipt from his father for Rs. 240 in respect of the premises earlier referred to for the month of October, 1969 and a sketch of the premises in occupation were enclosed. The application in the prescribed form for claiming HRA was also prepared and signed by the petitioner on the same date. But this application form does not contain the information that the premises in question belonged to the father of the applicant though the name of the landlord was given. The petitioner also furnished along with application form a certificate in a particular form prescribed as Annexure IIIA to the effect that he was living in a rented house from 1-10-1969 on a monthly rent of Rs. 240, that he was not a sub-tenant of another Government servant, that the accommodation in question not sublet or normally occupied by other than his family members, that his wife was not employed in any Central
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
