ORDER

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J (ORAL)

C.M. Appl. No.7570/2015 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P. (C) No.4177/2015

1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 27.07.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2359/2009, order dated 03.02.2010 in M.A. No.301/2010 and M.A. No.302/2010 in O.A. No.2359/2009, order dated 30.09.2010 in R.A. No.250/2010 in O.A. No.2359/2009, and the order dated 05.09.2014 in M.A. No.601/2012 and M.A. No.2150/2012 in O.A. No.2359/2009. The petitioner in the present writ petition has also sought certain other directions against the respondents in terms of prayer paras (iv) to (viii).

2. Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty has addressed arguments in support of his petition himself. He contends that by order dated 03.03.2008 passed by the respondent, he was placed under suspension because of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. In the said order itself, it was also directed that so long as the said order remains in force, the headquarters of the petitioner shall be at New Delhi and the officer shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of the officer who had signed the suspension order. Contention raised by the petitioner is that he was allotted a Government accommodation from Revenue Pool at Ghaziabad and by the said suspension order, a clear direction was given to the petitioner that he shall not leave the headquarters, which clearly meant that the headquarters were at New Delhi. Therefore, he was required to shift to New Delhi and then not to leave the jurisdiction of the headquarters. The petitioner has placed reliance on O.M. No.11014/2/E.II(B)/82 dated 19.03.1983, which as per the petitioner clearly provides that a Government servant, who, on transfer, has been permitted to retain a Government accommodation at the old station on payment of normal rent or penal rent or retains Government accommodation unauthorizedly on payment of damages etc., will not be entitled to HRA at the new station for the period beyond 8 months from the date of his transfer. The petitioner submits that the said O.M. entitles the petitioner to claim HRA for a period of 8 months during the period of his transfer. The petitioner has also invited the attention of the Court to his case being considered as that of a case for transfer by allowing the travelling allowance for transfer by the respondent themselves, but yet the respondents denied the said HRA to the petitioner for the period he remained in a rented accommodation in terms of the order of suspension dated 03.03.2008. The petitioner further argues that he has been making repeated requests to the respondents through written communications that he be permitted to stay with his family at Ghaziabad and in the event of the requests being not acceded to, to pay him the HRA for occupying the rented accommodation at New Delhi. The petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the letters dated 30.04.2008, 04.09.2008 and 19.03.2009 written by him in this regard.

3. We have heard the petitioner at considerable length and given our anxious consideration to the pleas raised by him. We have also heard Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate, who appears on behalf of the respondents on advance notice.

4. The said pleas raised by the petitioner have been convincingly dealt with by the Tribunal in their orders which are under challenge in the present petition and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal in dealing with the pleas of the petitioner. The petitioner had shifted to Ghaziabad after he had surrendered the General Pool accommodation which was allotted to him in New Delhi. The accommodation at Ghaziabad was allotted in favour of the petitioner at his request, as his son had joined some course of study in Ghaziabad. The petitioner was later placed under suspension in terms of Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)