The court affirmed that applying different HRA regulations for teachers based on spousal employment in the private sector violates the right to equality under Article 14.

For the petitioner : Mr. Ekramul Bari Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin For the State : Mr. Jaharlal Dey Ms. Sukla Das Chandra For the DPSC (South 24 Parganas) : Mr. Gourav Das Heard on : 04.07.2025 Judgment on : 04.07.2025 JAY SENGUPTA, J:

1. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today are kept with the record. 2. The writ petitioner is a Primary Teacher under the State. The subject matter of challenge is Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012 and Corrigendum dated December 27, 2018, issued by the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal and the Memo No. 68-ES/Audit/12A-47/17 dated November 16, 2017, issued by the Special Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal.

3. House Rent Allowance paid to Assistant Teachers under the State is normally linked to the HRA paid to their spouses who are also employed with the State Authority. The object is to ensure that a double benefit of HRA is not availed by a couple staying under the same roof.

4. The impugned memos however, sought to apply the said rule even to those Assistant Teachers who spouses are employed in Non-State private organization.

5. As a consequence whereof, such person like the petitioner are either denied HRA or allowed the same only to a limited extent under a ceiling. The issue was gone into and addressed in great detail by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court. A series of writ petitions were heard on the issue, and judgment was delivered inter alia, in WPA 1389 of 2018 ( Mousumi Biswas and another vs. State of West Bengal and others ) on March 16, 2021.

“48. Therefore, to summarize the key takeaways of the findings of the Court, the same is stated as follows:

a) The Audit Memo dated November 16, 2017 and Memo No. 2554/G-SE dated December 28, 2017 are held to have been issued without authority of law and is set aside on the grounds of being issued on irrelevant considerations and being manifestly arbitrary/discriminatory, in effect as per the law laid down in Subhasis Negel (supra).

b) Pertaining to the State’s access to limited pool of resources which necessitated this purported rejig of policy in the first place, such argument stands self-demolished for the reason that employees of State aided colleges and universities are getting the full benefits of drawal of HRA, notwithstanding that their spouses might be engaged in private employment. With a lack of a certain legitimate objective being met by the State, this therefore, becomes a clear case of unreasonable classification and hence is violative of the tenets of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India .

c) Notwithstanding the unreasonable classification which was carried out in the case of the petitioners which is patently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India , no technical or expert findings or relevant factors had been furnished by the State Respondents to justify the need for the alleged modification of such policy concerning the drawal of HRA, by the petitioners. There is no demonstration as to the extent of fiscal prudence sought to be achieved by the State by purportedly bringing into consideration the HRA of the spouses (engaged in private employment) of those employees who are serving in non Government/Aided/Sponsored educational institutions, to trigger the common ceiling under the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 and thereby specifying the quantum of funds saved, by the public exchequer. Therefore, such an irregular policy decision merits an interference of this Court as per the principles laid down in Subhasis Negel (supra) and Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra).

d) The impugned, clarificatory Corrigendum dated December 27, 2018 read with the Finance Department Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012 is applicable in the matters of grant of HRA to a state government employee, who are governed by the a