Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha, JJ.
Mohammed Salim - Appellants
Vs.
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3336 of 2019
Decided On : 19-08-2019
RAILWAY QUARTER - SURRENDER - HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE - PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - SECTION 19, 26 - RAILWAY SERVANT TRANSFERRED FROM AJMER TO JAIPUR DIVISION AND POSTED AT PHULERA - SURRENDERED RAILWAY QUARTER AT AJMER - NOT PAID HRA - WIFE RETAINED QUARTER -TRIBUNAL DISMISSED OA - HELD, RAILWAY ENTITLED TO GET QUARTER VACATED WITHIN TWO MONTHS - PETITIONER ENTITLED TO HRA AFTER TWO MONTHS - WIFE FREE TO AVAIL LEGAL REMEDY FOR RESIDENCE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a railway servant, was transferred from Ajmer to Jaipur Division and posted at Phulera. He surrendered the railway quarter at Ajmer and applied for HRA and allotment of a quarter at Phulera. However, the railways did not pay him HRA and did not allot him a quarter. The petitioner's wife, relying on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claimed the right to retain the quarter. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's OA.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to HRA after two months from the date of the order, i.e., 20.10.2019. The court also held that the wife was free to avail legal remedies for residence orders under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to HRA after surrendering the railway quarter? 2. Whether the wife was entitled to retain the quarter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to HRA after two months from the date of the order, i.e., 20.10.2019, as the railways were entitled to get the quarter vacated within two months. 2. The court held that the wife was free to avail legal remedies for residence orders under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition and directed the railways to get the quarter vacated within two months. The court also directed the railways to pay HRA to the petitioner after two months. The court further directed the wife to avail legal remedies for residence orders under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition has been filed against the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 11.1.2019 by which the Original Application filed by the petitioner against the order of the respondent-Railways dated 22.11.2018 has been dismissed. Petitioner earlier approached the Central Administrative Tribunal raising a grievance that despite his having surrendered the railway quarter upon his transfer from Ajmer to Jaipur Division and consequential posting at Phulera, the respondents have withheld the amount of house rent allowance to him and are continuously charging panel rent from him. The Tribunal by order dated 3.10.2018 disposed of the Original Application directing the respondent to treat the legal notice dated 11.8.2018 served by the petitioner as a representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months. This representation/legal notice has been decided by the D.R.M. (Personnel), Ajmer by speaking order dated 22.11.2018. It was this order, which the petitioner challenged before the Tribunal in the new O.A., which was decided by impugned order dated 11.1.2019.
2. Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that owing to the differences between petitioner and his wife, litigation ensued between them in number of Courts, including the one before the Family Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the pay slip of the month of October, 2018 showing deduction of sum of Rs. 20,000 from his salary to be paid to his wife as maintenance pursuant to the order of Family court under that Act.
3. It is argued that when the petitioner was earlier posted in Ajmer Division, he was allotted Railway Quarter No. 1357/B at Ajmer. He was later on transferred to Jaipur Division and was relieved from Ajmer to join at Jaipur on 29.7.2016. Soon after joining at Jaipur, he submitted an application to the respondent no. 3-D.R.M., North Western Railway on 1.6.2017 that since there were serious disputes between him and his wife, he due to apprehension of danger to his life could not personally go to Ajmer to vacate the allotted quarter. Therefore the respondent should treat the quarter to have been surrendered by him with all the articles lying therein. He further submitted similar applications on 18.6.2017 and 22.6.2017, copies whereof were placed on record. It is submitted that the respondent by order dated 7.6.2017 posted the petitioner at Phulera and since then he is working at Phulera. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite having surrendered the railway quarter, the respondents have not been making payment of house rent allowance to him. They have not treated him eligible for allotment of quarter at Phulera. He therefore submitted further representation on 1.5.2018 and 7.6.2018, even then the payment of HRA was not made to him. The HRA for the month of September, 2018 to the tune of Rs. 4,416 was granted to the petitioner, but did not grant the HRA since October, 2018. Petitioner served a legal notice and thereafter that legal notice was treated as representation, which was rejected by the respondents.
4. Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner was under threat for his life from his in-laws, he did not even claim the household items viz. T.V., Fridge, Cooler, etc. amounting to Rs. 50,000. It is contended that the respondent-railways in the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner have illegally required the petitioner to obtain the certificates from SSE Electrical, GLO/Station Ajmer regarding removal of meter/fans and disconnection of water connection and then deposit the proof thereof with the railways. The said condition imposed by the respondent to obtain the NOC and then only to treat the quarter as surr
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
