Government employees paying rent directly to private entities are entitled to House Rent Allowance, and denying it based on discriminatory practices is unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Roshan, J.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the letter dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure-7); by which the claim of the petitioner for grant of House Rent Allowance for the period 05.12.2001 to 12.01.2011 has been rejected, though, in the same department other similarly situated persons have been given the benefit after the order passed by this Court.

The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of letter dated 09.05.2023 (Annexure-8); by which the representation of the petitioner for reconsideration of his case in terms of Annexure9, one similarly situated person namely, Manju Verma being W.P.(S) No. 1418 of 2017 of the same department, in whose case the impugned order (Annexure-10) was withdrawn by the respondent and she was given the benefit of HRA, but in the case of the petitioner the representation for reconsideration has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed in 1978 as a Steno Typist in the Department of Labour, Employment and Training and retired on 30.06.2012 from the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur and the Quarter No. L-4/18, Cross Road No.3 Agrico, was allotted to the petitioner on 05.12.2001 and on 12.01.2011 the quarter had been surrendered being too small for family and the same was accepted. Since the petitioner was not getting the house rent allowance but paying house rent to M/s. Tata Steel/JUSCO; the petitioner moved this Court in W.P. (S) No.6519 of 2022 which was disposed of on 04.01.2023 (Annexure-11) with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in light of other similarly situated persons. Thereafter, petitioner made representation before the respondents; however, the same was rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this issue is no more res-integra and has been decided in number of cases which is annexed as Annexure-1, 2 & 6 to the writ petition. He further submits that admittedly; the petitioner is paying rent, municipal tax, electricity duty directly to JUSCO.

He further refers to Annexure-4 dated 25.05.2019; and submits that the same speaks about the person whose HRA is due where the name of the petitioner also stood at Serial No. 7. This document clearly indicates that HRA of the petitioner is due from 05.12.2001 to 12.01.2011 and from the said letter i.e., Annexure4, it is also evident that the said letter was issued in respect to Manju Verma and other similarly situated persons.

Learned counsel further submits that Manju Verma & Ors. (Supra) has preferred writ application which was disposed of on 20.12.2018; whereby this Court has directed to pay the entire HRA to her. He submits that the case of Manju Verma is on same and similar footing as the case of the petitioner; hence the case of the petitioner should be considered on same ground.

5. Learned counsel for the State Respondent No.1 to 7 relying upon the counter affidavit, submits that in the light of Letter No.4186/Vi. dated 24.06.2022 and Letter No.2313/Vi. dated 28.07.2008 issued by Finance Department, Jharkhand, the quarters obtained from/allotted by Tata Steel/Bokaro Steel to Government Department shall be treated as Government Quarter and employee of State Government living in such quarters shall not be entitled for house rent allowance; as such, no interference is required with the impugned orders.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.8 supported the statement of the petitioner to the extent that he is paying rent, electricity etc. directly to JUSCO.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after going through the averments made in the respective affidavits and the documents annexed therein; it transpires from the office order dated 29.07.2018 by which H.R.A of Manju Verma and others was rejected, which has been subsequently withdrawn vide office order dated 14.12.2018.

It further transpires from the order pas