Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Dr. A. Augustine, S/o Antony Cruz – Respondent
WA No.924 of 2022
Decided on : 23-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Employees - Working in Corporation - Claim for HRA and CCA - Claim made by petitioner for (HRA) and (CCA) as applicable to employees working in offices situated within limits of Corporation – HRA is only an allowance and it has nothing to do with place of stay of employee. (Para 15)
Finding of the Court :
Petitioner who is admittedly a person working in an establishment situated outside Corporation, cannot claim parity with employees of establishments situated inside city corporation in matter of receiving HRA – Court take this view also for reason that HRA is only an allowance and it has nothing to do with place of stay of employee – Court do not find any merit in argument advanced by petitioner based on order issued by State Government in context of staff College also - Specific contention taken by State in counter affidavit filed in matter in this regard is that a part of buildings of said college is situated in a Municipal area and rest is situated in a Panchayat area and it is on account of said reason that Government has treated employees of institution as one class for purpose of extending HRA - Said case, according to court, has nothing to do with case on hand.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.7.2021 in W.P.(C) No.21677 of 2012. The appellant is the State. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner was a teacher in the Kerala Agricultural University (the University). He was working in the Headquarters of the University situated at Vellanikkara within the limits of Madakkathara Panchayat in Thrissur District. Madakkathara Panchayat is a Panchayat adjoining Thrissur Corporation which is classified by the Central Government as a 'B2' city. The matter relates to the claim made by the petitioner for House Rent Allowance (HRA) and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) as applicable to the employees working in the offices situated within the limits of Thrissur Corporation.
3. HRA and CCA which are part of the salary of employees of the University are being disbursed in accordance with the orders issued by the State Government from time to time based on the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissions. The teachers working in the Headquarters of the University were being disbursed HRA and CCA as applicable to State Government employees working in offices within Thrissur Corporation till the implementation of the recommendations of the 8th Pay Revision Commission, as the Pay Revision Orders issued earlier contained a specific provision to the effect that employees working in offices situated within five kilometers from B2 cities are also entitled to HRA at the rate admissible to the employees situated in offices within the limits of such cities. However, in Ext.P5 order issued by the State Government based on the recommendations of the 8th Pay Revision Commission, it is stated that the rates of HRA provided for therein will apply only to employees working in offices situated within the City/Municipal limits. In other words, the provision made in the earlier Pay Revision Orders to the effect that the employees working in the offices situated within five kilometers from B2 cities are entitled to HRA at the rate admissible to the employees working in offices situated in such cities, has been given a go-bye. Ext.P6 is the order issued by the University to give effect to Ext.P5 order. As a result of Exts.P5 and P6 orders, the petitioner and similarly placed officers of the University are able to draw HRA only as provided for in Ext.P5 order as applicable to towns not in B Class city/C Class city or town. Subsequently, the Government issued another order revising the pay of the State Government employees including the employees of the University based on the recommendations of the 9th Pay Revision Commission. Ext.P13 is the order issued by the State Government in this regard on 26.02.2011. In Ext.P13 also, the provision made for payment of HRA was identical to the provision made in Ext.P5 order.
4. On 06.08.2011, the General Council of the University passed a resolution requesting the Government to extend to the employees in all establishments of the University, HRA, as applicable to the nearest Municipal Corporation. Ext.P12 is the decision taken by the General Council of the University in this regard. Based on Ext.P12, the University made a representation to the Government. The said representation was rejected by the Government in terms of Ext.P15 order. The writ petition was instituted challenging Exts.P5 and P13 Pay Revision Orders, to the extent the same deals with payment of HRA based on the location of the office and Ext.P15 order of the Government rejecting the representation made by the University based on the decision of its General Council. The petitioner also sought a declaration in the writ petition to the effect that non-providing of HRA and CCA to him as applicable to employees working in offices located within the Thrissur Corporation is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.
5. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there is no j
Article 14 of Constitution cannot be judged by adopting a doctrinaire approach or having regard to individual cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to House Rent Allowance (HRA) at specified rates based on the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.1993 and Section 33(....
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.
Employees of Mizoram University are entitled to House Rent Allowance at 'Y' category rates, as previous court orders and equal treatment principles apply despite city classification.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that accommodation provided by a Central Government autonomous body, such as IGNOU, qualifies as 'Government Accommodation' under Rule 5(c)(iii) of....
Central Government employees in the same city must receive uniform House Rent Allowance benefits, preventing discrimination based on department classifications.
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
