$~J-1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 10992/2021 & CM No. 33854/2021

JAYABRATA BOSE

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Subhra Prashar, Advocate for

UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

TALWANT SINGH, J.:

1. The petitioner has challenged the final order dated 03.09.2021, passed

in OA No. 862/2019 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal

(hereinafter referred to „the CAT‟), Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he was a Group „A‟

Government officer posted in Delhi and his wife, who is an employee of

Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), also posted at Delhi and

she was allotted a residential accommodation since July, 2003. Petitioner

was residing with his wife but on 15.05.2007, he informed his department

that he had shifted to his own flat at Shipra Sun City, Indirapuram,

Ghaziabad but his wife continued to stay at her official accommodation in

IGNOU Campus due to her work-related exigencies. The petitioner was

granted House Rent Allowance (HRA) w.e.f. May 2007.

3. On 03.03.2016, when petitioner was posted in Delhi Milk Scheme, a

2022:DHC:248-DB

complaint was made regarding HRA being claimed by the petitioner. The

authorities then decided that petitioner is not entitled to HRA as per para 5

(c) (iii) of HRA Rules, as his wife was employed in IGNOU. Further,

payment of HRA was stopped and recovery of the already disbursed amount

of Rs.13,76,697/- for the period from May, 2007 to March, 2017 was

ordered to be made.

4. The petitioner, then, challenged the aforesaid order being arbitrary,

illegal, discriminatory and against the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India before CAT by filing OA No. 862/2019. Prior thereto, the petitioner

had submitted a representation to his department on 11.04.2017; it was

rejected on 14.02.2019. During the pendency of the OA filed by the

petitioner, recovery was stayed vide order dated 25.03.2019.

5. The petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2021. On 03.02.2021, an

amount of Rs.13,76,697/- was withheld by respondents out of his retiral

benefits. The OA filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 03.09.2021.

Hence, the present petition was filed.

6. We have heard arguments for admission of the writ petition on

28.09.2021 and our considered view is as under.

7. The CAT while dismissing the OA filed by the petitioner observed as

under:

2022:DHC:248-DB

“It is clarified that as both the officer & his wife are

„Government

separately at Ghaziabad”

2022:DHC:248-DB

as to costs”.

8. As noted above, the main contention of the petitioner is that IGNOU

is a university and the accommodation provided to his wife is not covered

under the definition of government accommodation, as this is neither a

government department nor a government body.

2022:DHC:248-DB

9.

The petitioner was a member of Indian Costs and Accounts Service.

He was well aware about the Government rules and Office Memorandums

issued from time to time. The applicable rule in this regard is reproduced

hereunder:

“Conditions for Drawl of House Rent Allowance

5. …

Allowance, If –

separately in accommodation rented by him/her.”

10. The case of the petitioner falls under Rule 5 (c) (iii) of HRA Rules. It

has been time and again reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the University, i.e., IGNOU is neither the department of the Central

Government nor State Government, nor an autonomous body/undertaking,

nor a semi-government organization such as Municipality, Port Trust etc.

and as such even if his wife lives in the accommodation provided by

IGNOU, he is still entitled to HRA if he lives in his own house.

11. The CAT has rightly noted that if it is believed that the

ac