Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA-2591/2014

Reserved on : 26.04.2016.

Pronounced on : 29.04.2016.

Hon’ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)

Smt. Sunita Jain, Aged 47 years,

W/o Sh. T.C. Mangla,

Working as TGT (English),

GGSSS No.2, Railway Colony,

Tuglakabad, New Delhi.

R/o H.No. 171, Gali No.Q-54,

Molarband Extn.

Badarpur Board, New Delhi.

....

Applicant

(through Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate)

Versus

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through

The Chief Secretary,

New Sectt., Near ITO, New Delhi.

2. The Director of Education,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

Old Sectt., New Delhi.

3. The Deputy Director of Education,

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

Distt. South Defence Colony,

New Delhi.

4. The Vice-Principal/HQS,

Govt. Girl’s Senior Secondary School No.2,

Railway Colony, Tughalakabad,

New Delhi-44.

....

Respondents

(through Mrs. P.K. Gupta, Advocate)

O R D E R

The applicant is a physically handicapped female employee working as

Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (English) in Directorate of Education, Govt. of

NCT of Delhi. She is presently posted to Government Girls, Senior Secondary

School No.2, Railway Colony, Tugalakabad, New Delhi. Her husband, who is

also physically handicapped, is working as Head Draftsman in Public Health

Department in Government of Haryana. According to the applicant, her

2

OA-2591/2014

husband was allotted government accommodation in Faridabad in 2001 and

information to this effect was given by her to the respondents. She also

informed the respondents that she was residing in a rented house in Moladband

Extension, since it was not possible for her to travel to Tuglakabad daily from

Faridabad, the distance being more than 25 Kms. and she being physically

handicapped. She was getting HRA till November, 2011. However, they

stopped paying her HRA from December, 2011. Vide their order dated

16.10.2012 the respondents decided to make recovery of HRA paid to the

applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2001, the total amount of recovery being Rs. 4,78,807/-. It

was ordered that recovery from the applicant be made in 100 instalments. The

applicant submitted a representation on 07.01.2013 but till date the same

remains undecided. Meanwhile, husband of the applicant has also been

transferred from Faridabad to Palwal where he has joined on 12.06.2014. The

applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:-

“(i)

That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an

order of quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2012 (Annex.A/1) and

consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to restore and to

grant the HRA of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2001 with all the consequential

benefits including the arrears of HRA and refund of recovered amount

with interest.

(ii)

That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an

order declaring to the effect that the applicant is entitled for grant of HRA

as per rules and was rightly granted her HRA since 1.1.2001, and

consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to restore and to

grant the HRA of the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.2001 with all the consequential

benefits including the arrears of HRA and refund of recovered amount

with interest.

(iii)

Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper

may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation.”

2. In their reply, the respondents have stated that when they realized that

even though her husband was allotted government accommodation the

applicant was claiming HRA, they called for her explanation on 25.08.2011.

Thereafter, the HOS of the school stopped HRA w.e.f. December, 2011 on the

3

OA-2591/2014

ground that Faridabad is a contiguous city of Delhi and the rates of HRA and

CCA in Delhi and Faridabad were the same. Faridabad complex is, therefore,

included in the term “same station” as occurring in Para-5(c)(iii) of HR