S C Jain vs M/o Steel

1

(Reserved on 10.09.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Through Video Conferencing)

th
this the 15 day of October , 2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Original Application No. 1052 of 2019
S.C. Jain, S/o Late M.L. Jain, aged about 61 years, R/o Plot 5,
Block – 59, Nehru Nagar (W), Bhilai, District – Durg – 490020 (CG).
…….Applicant

Advocate for the applicant: Ms. Poonam Girloker, holding brief of Shri
Amit Buxy
V E R S U S
1. Steel Authority of India Limited through the Chairman, Ispat
Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
2. Director (Personnel), Steel Authority of India Limited, Ispat
Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003.
3. Deputy Manager (Personnel – OD), IISCO Steel Plant,
Burnpur, District – Barddhaman, West Bengal - 713325.
4. Chief Executive Officer, IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur, District –
Barddhaman, West Bengal - 713325.
5. Chief Executive Officer, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai,
Chhattisgarh - 490021.
Advocate for the respondents: None
Page 1 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY

2

O R D E R
By Smt. Mallika Arya, JM.-

The present original application has been filed seeking
direction to the respondents to refund amount of Rs. 2,11,555/-
deducted from him towards HRA .

2. The applicant was transferred from Bhilai Steel Plant to the
IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur vide order dated 17.11.2014. On his
request, he was allowed to retain the accommodation provided by
the Steel Plant at Bhilai w.e.f. 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2015 (Annexure
A-3) on payment of usual charge as per rules of the company. Ac per
the request of the applicant, the retention of the said
accommodation was extended up to 15.11.2017 vide order dated
24.11.2016. The applicant also filed an application for extension of
retention for the accommodation for fourth years. However, the
respondents deducted amount of Rs. 2,11,555/- from the salary for
the month of June 2018 on the ground that the applicant did not
submit declaration about the HRA received by his wife, who was
working as Assistant Professor at Kalyan P.G. College, Bhilai. The
learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
respondents have illegally deducted the amount of 2,11,555/- from
Page 2 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY

3
the applicant as no prior notice or information was given to him. The
learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the
applicant has already submitted a declaration on 12.04.2016
(Annexure A-5). The applicant has also intimated the Chief Executive
Officer, SAIL/ISP, Burnpur vide his application dated 29.06.2018
(Annexure A-5 at page 20 of OA) that his spouse is employed in a
private organization at Bhilai and they are getting HRA separately.
The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this fact
was also intimated to the ISP with supporting document with first
application of retention. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for HRA
in accordance with the Circular No. PER/ESS/4087 dated
19.01.2016. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has
contended that the action of the respondents in deducting the
amount towards HRA is illegal and unjust and has prayed to allow
the OA.

3. The respondents have contested the OA and have filed their
reply stating therein the wife of the applicant Smt. Santosh Jain,
Assistant Professor at Kalyan P.G College, Bhilai was receiving HRA
since 01.01.2001. The respondents have also stated that as per HRA
rules effective from 16.01.2016, where one of the spouse is employed
Page 3 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY

4
in SAIL and another in any government/PSU and stationed at the
same location, the HRA would be paid to the employee only if the
spouse is not drawing any HRA from his/her organization. In the
present OA, the wife of the applicant was getting HRA for
accommodation allotted to the applicant at Bhilai Steel Plant. Even
on transfer, to ISP, Burnpur, the applicant was drawing HRA at
Burnpur and his wife was also drawing HRA after the circular dated
16.01.2016 and continued to do so till the applicant opted for
voluntary retirement. Since, no other address had been furnished by
the applicant at ISP, Burnpur, therefore, amount received by his wife
towards HRA was deducted from his salary w.e.f. 19.01.2016. As the
applicant took voluntary retirement, therefore total recoverable
amount of Rs. 2,11,555/- has been deducted from the applicant.

4. We have heard learned brief holder of the applicant’s counsel
through video conferencing. As nobody had appeared on behalf of
the respondents, 15 days time was granted to them to file written
submission. However, no written submission has been filed within
stipulated period.

Page 4 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY

5
5. It is not disputed that after the applicant was transferred
from Bhilai Steel Plant to ISP, Burnpur, he retained the
accommodation provided by the company at Bhilai for a period of
three years from 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2017. The said
accommodation of the company was allowed to be retained by the
applicant on his own request. As per rules, he was drawing 20% of
his basic pay towards HRA i.e. the rate applicable at Bhilai while
being posted at Burnpur. Simultaneously, the wife of the applicant,
was also drawing HRA from her organization and staying in the
same accommodation which was provided to the applicant by his
company.

6. It is not disputed that after the applicant was transferred
from Bhilai Steel Plant to ISP, Burnpur, he retained the
accommodation provided by the company at Bhilai for a period of
three years from 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2017. The said
accommodation was allowed to be retained by the applicant on his
own request. As per order dated 17.01.2015 (Annexure A-3), HRA
facility was allowed to the applicant for one year from 16.11.2014 to
15.11.2015 at the rate applicable at Bhilai i.e. 20% basic pay. The
Page 5 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY

6
retention of the said accommodation was extended upto 15.11.2017
on request of the applicant himself.

7. We have further noted from the order dated 20.06.2018
(Annexure R-9) that the recovery has been inflicted upon the
applicant towards the HRA received by his wife from her
organization as per the Circular No. PER/ESS/4087 dated
19.01.2016 (Annexure R-11). Para (a) and (b) of the said Circular is
reproduced below: -
“a). In cases, where both the spouses are employed in
the Company and are posted at the same location only
one of them will be paid HRA.

b). in cases, where one spouse is employed in SAIL,
another in Govt/other Public Sector/ any other
organization and are stationed at the same location,
HRA would be paid only if the spouse is not drawing
HRA from Govt./other Public Sector/any other
organization where he or she is employed.”

8. The word “ any other organization ” covers the applicant’s
case and in view of this, dual HRA is not permissible to the
applicant. In the present case, the applicant and his wife had been
drawing HRA even after the date of Circular dated 16.01.2016 and
continued to avail the same till the applicant retired voluntarily.

Page 6 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY

7
9. Having regard to the above position, we are of the considered
opinion that the action of the respondents in recovering amount of
2,11,555/- towards HRA from the dues of the applicant is in
accordance with the rules of the Company. Hence, we do not find
any merit in the claim of the applicant and the Original application
deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Original Application No.
1052/2019 is dismissed .
10. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off
11. There will be no order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand…

Page 7 of 7
2026.10.16
17:04:37
+05'30'
ANAND
PRAKASH
DUBEY