State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.

Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

Bombay High Court

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R.Y. Ganoo
1

SQP

4093.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.4093 OF 2011

1.State of Maharashtra,
Through the Principal Secretary,
Education Department,
Higher & Technical Education,

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

...Petitioners

Versus
Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal,

Lecturer in Microbiology,
Elphinstone College, 156 M.G.Road,
Fort, Mumbai - 32
R/o:A/603, Dosti Mercury,
Sheikh Mesiry Road, Wadala,
Mumbai - 400 032.

...Respondent
......

Mr.A.B.Vagyani, A.G.P. for Petitioner.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

Respondent present in-person.

......
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND

R.Y.GANOO, JJ.
DATED:- JUNE 24, 2011.
ORDER (Per A.M.Khanwilkar, J. ) :

1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent appearing in- person.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 :::
2 4093.11
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Respondent waives notice.
3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.
4. This Petition takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal dated 30th June, 2010 in Original Application No.229 of 2006. Briefly
stated, the respondent joined as Lecturer in Microbiology in Elphinstone College on 5th September,
1990.
Later on, she was appointed in the same post through Maharashtra Public Service Commission on
17th July, 1997. On 29th October, 2004, she was entrusted with additional charge of Resident
Assistant Superintendent (R.A.S.) with effect from 3rd November, 2004. It is her case that she was
orally informed that the House Rent Allowance which was given to her while she was working as the
lecturer, would be continued even though she would be occupying Government accommodation in
the capacity of Resident Assistant Superintendent in the Hostel. On the basis of this solemn
assurance, it is the case of the respondent, she took over the charge as Resident Assistant
Superintendent. However, on 18th March, 2006, she ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 ::: 3
4093.11 received communication from the College that she is required to reimburse the House Rent
Allowance received by her from 3rd November, 2004 onwards. After receipt of the said
communication, respondent made representation and eventually filed Original Application before
the Tribunal being Original Application No.229 of 2006. In the Original Application, the respondent
prayed for following reliefs:

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

"(a) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon.Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set
aside the order dated 18.3.2006 issued by the Respondent under which the Petitioner
was informed that HRA amount which has been received by the Petitioner from
3.11.2004 till February 2006 has not been deducted and therefore, the same will be
recovered from the Petitioner's salary for the month of March 2006; and accordingly,
the Petitioner be granted all the consequential service benefits.
(b) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon.Tribunal may be pleased to hold and
declare that the Petitioner was/is entitled to receive HRA as was being received by
the Petitioner till February 2006 and accordingly, the Respondent be directed to
continue to pay the HRA to the Petitioner for the subsequent months till the
Petitioner held additional charge of the post of Resident Assistant Superintendent.
(c) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon.Tribunal may be pleased to hold and
declare that the Petitioner was entitled to receive special pay as per the Government
Rules in respect of the additional charge held by her vis-a-vis the post of Resident
Assistant Superintendent for the said period when she held such charge and the same
may be ordered to be paid to her forthwith.
(d) Costs of this Petition be provided for;
(e) Any other order necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be issued.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 :::
4

4093.11

10. Interim order prayed for :

Pending hearing and final disposal of this Original Application, the Petitioner seeks
the following interim relief(a) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon.Tribunal may be
pleased to stay the execution/ operation/ implementation of the impugned order
dated 18.3.2006 issued by the Respondent under which the Petitioner was informed
that HRA amount which has been received by the Petitioner from 3.11.2004 till
February 2006 has not been deducted and therefore, the same will be recovered from
the Petitioner's salary for the month of March 2006."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

5. The Tribunal by the impugned Judgment has allowed the Original Application by setting aside the
communication dated 18th March, 2006 which, as aforesaid, pertains to the demand of
reimbursement of House Rent Allowance already received by the respondent from 3rd November,
2004. The Tribunal in the first place, found that the Government was not able to produce any
specific orders disclosing the policy to be followed in respect of a teaching staff who is given
additional charge of Resident Assistant Superintendent as to whether on such appointment, the said
employee would cease to enjoy the House Rent Allowance which he was otherwise entitled to in his
earlier tenure. Besides, the Tribunal found that the Department was extending facility of House
Rent Allowance to employees working in the Government Arts, Science College, Aurangabad,
Institute of Science, Aurangabad. The Tribunal, therefore, held that there ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 17:23:49 ::: 5 4093.11 was no tangible basis to refuse the said facility to the respondent
and for that reason, to call upon her to reimburse the amount already received by her towards
House Rent Allowance. This decision is the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition by the
State. The petitioner State has not only criticised the impugned Judgment by relying on the
Government Resolution dated 25th April, 1988 but also placed on record that employees who are
similarly placed such as Dr.S.V. Dongardive and Smt.Vijaya Yeole were not paid House Rent
Allowance. Further, the Department has already initiated action against the Officials who have
received House Rent Allowance in the past, in particular, stationed at Aurangabad referred to in the
impugned decision. In addition, the learned A.G.P. on instructions states that in all cases where
such benefit has been wrongly passed on, the Department has decided to resort to recovery
procedure against the concerned employees.
6. The respondent who appears in-person, submits that she has joined the post of Resident Assistant
Superintendent on the basis of oral assurance given to her that she would continue to get House
Rent Allowance, coupled with the fact that because of accepting the said appointment, she had to
abandon her personal residence in the City which remained vacant and ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 17:23:49 ::: 6 4093.11 unused. Further, the nature of appointment of Resident Assistant
Superintendent is such that personal presence of the incumbent in the Hostel is essential, for which
reason, the respondent had no choice but to utilise the accommodation available in the hostel
earmarked for Resident Assistant Superintendent. For all these reasons, it is contended that the
respondent cannot and ought not to be denied benefit of House Rent Allowance especially in
absence of a clear policy of the Government in that behalf. The respondent also contended that at
any rate, she was entitled for special pay for the nature of her job which was not limited to working
hours. Even this aspect ought to be borne in mind while considering the claim of the respondent.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the
entitlement for House Rent Allowance is not a matter of right. It is dependent on the terms and
conditions of appointment.
If the concerned employee is eligible for rent-free quarters as a condition of service, becomes
entitled for House Rent Allowance if he does not reside in the Government owned/hired
accommodation. The fact that the respondent was provided Government accommodation in the
hostel where she was appointed as Resident Assistant Superintendent is not in dispute at all.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 :::

7 4093.11 Keeping that factual position in mind, we may have to consider the claim of the
respondent. As per Government Resolution dated 25th April, 1998, it is amply clear that House Rent
Allowance is payable to the employees other than those residing in Government owned/hired
accommodation. If the employee is already occupying Government owned/hired accommodation,
the question of receiving House Rent Allowance does not arise, as that allowance is paid in lieu of
rent-free quarter which may be one of the condition of service. We may usefully refer to clauses 4
and 5 of the aforesaid Government Resolution which reads thus:
"4. House Rent Allowance at the above rates shall be payable to all employees (other
than those residing in Government owned/hired accommodation) without requiring
them to produce rent receipts. These employees shall, however, be required to
furnish a certificate (As in Annexure II) to the effect that they are incurring some
expenditure on rent/contributing towards rent. House Rent Allowance shall also be
paid to Government employees living in `their' own houses, subject to their
furnishing a certificate as in Annexure II accompanying this resolution. These
certificates shall be produced by the employees in the month of April each year or
whenever there is a change in the contents of the certificate. All other conditions at
present applicable for grant of House Rent Allowance shall continue to apply. The
condition prescribed in respect of employees in the rural areas that of residing at the
place of duty for eligibility of House Rent Allowance shall however, be dispensed
with.
5. According to the order cited at (ii) above, Government servants, who are eligible
for rent-free quarters as a condition of service and to whom quarters are not provided
are eligible to claim House Rent Allowance in lieu of rent-free quarters. Such
Government servants will be eligible to draw House Rent Allowance in lieu of
rent-free quarters on the basis of revised rates of house rent allowance plus 10 per
cent of their existing pay and compensatory local allowance, subject to fulfillment of
conditions prescribed for claiming house rent allowance, in lieu of rentfree quarters."

(emphasis supplied)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:

4093.11

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

8. From the plain language of the aforesaid clauses, it is not possible to countenance
the claim of the respondent that she should continue to get House Rent Allowance
after she was appointed as Resident Assistant Superintendent and also provided with
the Government accommodation in the hostel. The fortuitous situation that the
respondent had to keep her personal accommodation vacant, cannot be the basis to
grant House Rent Allowance. That allowance is and can be granted only in lieu of
rent-free accommodation.
9. In our opinion, the Tribunal completely misdirected itself in proceeding on the basis that there is
no clear policy of the Government.
Inasmuch as the policy of the Government is reflected in the Government Resolution dated 25th
April, 1988. The fact that no separate provision is made regarding the category of employees, who,
for the nature of their duty are required to occupy the Government accommodation, irrespective of
the fact that he/she may possess a residential premises of her own in the same city which may have
to be kept unused or the fact that the employee is given additional charge, cannot be the
determinating factor. However, as per the extant policy, the determinating factor to receive the
House Rent ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 ::: 9 4093.11 Allowance would be that the
employee was not occupying Government owned/hired accommodation as his residence during the
relevant period although he was entitled to do so as per the conditions of his service. The Tribunal
was also impressed by the fact that similarly placed employees working with other
Departments/Institutions of Government such as Government Arts and Science College,
Aurangabad and Institute of Aurangabad were being paid House Rent Allowance inspite of the fact
that they were occupying Government accommodation while discharging their duty as Resident
Assistant Superintendent. It is well established position that if some benefit is wrongly extended to
some of the employees, cannot be the basis to assert that the same benefit should be passed on, as a
matter of right. The right to receive House Rent Allowance either emanates from the service
condition or the statutory rules or the administrative instructions reflecting the policy of
Government. In any case, it has now come on record that the Department has initiated action for
recovery of the amount wrongly paid to other similarly placed employees who were not entitled to
received House Rent Allowance. Accordingly, the above said opinion of the Tribunal will have to be
reversed and in which case, the relief claimed by the respondent in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b) of the Original Application will have to be rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 :::
10 4093.11
10. There is, however, one aspect which we may consider on the basis of oral submissions made
across the Bar by the respondent. In that, the respondent had also claimed relief of grant of special
pay as per Government Rules for the additional charge held by her of Resident Assistant
Superintendent. However, the Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect at all. We are conscious that
the respondent has not filed a formal Petition to question that error committed by the Tribunal.
Nevertheless, we would entertain the oral prayer for the respondent to consider that grievance while
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/

State Of Maharashtra vs Smt.Swati Dattatraya Wavahal on 24 June, 2011

deciding this Writ Petition filed by the State, which is being disposed of at the admission stage on
the first date of hearing. We intend to do so as it would be open to the respondent to file a separate
Petition in which this grievance can be taken forward. Accordingly, we would partly allow this Writ
Petition in the interest of justice by setting aside the impugned decision and restoring the Original
Application to the file of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for considering prayer clause (c)
of the Application on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions in that behalf are left
open.
11. At this stage, respondent contends that the Tribunal ought to have ::: Downloaded on 09/06/2013 17:23:49 ::: 11 4093.11 taken note of the fact that her appointment order did not
mention any condition about payment of House Rent Allowance. The fact that the appointment
order is silent in that behalf would in fact disentitle the respondent to receive House Rent Allowance
at all. The employee is eligible to get House Rent Allowance only as a service condition in lieu of
rent-free Government quarters/accommodation. If that is not the service condition, the question of
payment of House Rent Allowance would not arise. In any case, for the reasons already recorded, we
do not find merits in the claim as prayed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Original
Application.
12. We hope and trust that the Secretary of the Finance and General Administration Department
shall issue directions to all concerned to recover House Rent Allowance from the similarly placed
employees who have been wrongly paid the same in the past, if already not done, and take those
instructions to its logical end.
13. Petition disposed of accordingly.
(R.Y.GANOO, J.)

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)

::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:23:49 :::

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/3732633/