Advocates:
['VS GURJAR', 'HAWA SINGH', '', 'NIDHI KHANDELWAL', 'KUNAL RAWAT', 'B BAGRI', 'DR SAUGHAT RAO']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2656 / 2001

1.

Union of India though Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastri

Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.

The Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India,

Western Region, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Dr. U.B. Mathur, r/o A-25, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, posted as

Director Pal Lab, GSI (W.R.) Jaipur.

2.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur,

through it’s Registrar, 17, Shivaji Marg, Near Diggi House, Ram

Singh Road, Jaipur-302001.

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS

Judgment

16/05/2017

1.

By way of this writ petition, the Central Government has

challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as ‘the CAT’)

whereby the CAT has allowed the original application preferred by

the original applicant respondent herein.

2.

After considering the reply filed by the Union of India, the

CAT has in para 9 observed as under:

“In the instant case, it is abundantly clear

that the applicant was residing in the

accommodation allowed to his wife by the

University of Rajasthan and the applicant

was paid HRA in view of the provisions

contained in clause 5(c) of (Part V) FRSR-

(2 of 4)

[CW-2656/2001]

HRA & CCA.

Thereafter, recovery

proceedings were initiated. In our view, the

instant case is squarely covered by the

order passed in S.G.Rajarshi vs. UOI & Ors.

OA No.822 of 1991, decided on 26.10.1994

by Bombay Bench of the Tribunal. In view

of the order passed in the aforesaid O.A by

the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal, the

applicant is entitled to HRA in the instant

case and the impugned order dated

10/13.5.1996 and 16.7.1996 are liable to

be quashed and set aside,”

3.

Taking into consideration the earlier decision of Bombay

Bench of the CAT the issue was decided in favour of the applicant

as under:

(i) quash and set aside the impugned orders

dated 10/13.5.1996 and 16.07.96 and

declare that the applicant is entitled to HRA

as admissible to Central Govt. employees;

(ii)

applicant is also entitled to refund of

the amount of HRA which was paid to him

and subsequently recovered along with

interest @ 12% per annum.”

4.

Counsel for the appellant has relied upon two conditions

which were referred to by the original applicant in the original

application which reads as under:

Conditions for Drawl of House Rent

Allowance:

(a) -----

(b) -----

(c) A Government Servant shall not be

entitled to house rent allowance if:

(i) -----

(ii) –---

(iii) his wife/her husband has allotted

accommodation at the same station by the

Central Government, State Government, an

autonomous public undertaking or semi-

Government organisation such as

Municipality, Port Trust, etc. whether he/she

(3 of 4)

[CW-2656/2001]

resides in that accommodation or he/she

resides separately in accommodation rented

by him/her.”

5.

Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the

Bombay Bench of the CAT of which para 12 to 14 reads as under:

“12.

As per para 5 (C)(iii) conditions of

drawal of House Rent Allowance applicable

to employees of respondent No.2 (part-V-

HRA and CCA- Swamy-s Compilation of

FRSR) (at page 128-130) it is clear that

employees of respondent No.1 shall not be

entitled to HRA if such employees wife, or

husband has been allotted Government

accommodation at the same station by

Central Government, State Government and

Autonomous Body, Public Undertaking or

Semi Government Organisation etc.,

therefore, she was not entitled to get HRA

for the above said period, therefore,

recovery has rightly been ordered.

13.

They have thus prayed that the OA

may be d