Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 365
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 43 OF 2022)
R.K. MUNSHI .…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR
AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27
September, 2021 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in LPA No.
38 of 2020 whereby, the learned Division Bench rejected the
Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant and affirmed the
th
order dated 19 December, 2019 passed by the learned Single
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2024.05.02
15:25:20 IST
Reason:
Judge in SWP No. 3440 of 2014 rejecting the writ petition filed by
the appellant.
1
3. Succinctly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of
the appeal are that the appellant herein was working as an
th
Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, 4 Battalion.
th
He superannuated from services on 30 April, 2014. The
appellant received a communication from the Director Police,
Telecom regarding recovery of the outstanding rentals on account
of unauthorized drawals of House Rent Allowance(hereinafter
being referred to as ‘HRA’) by the appellant. The said action was
taken under Rule 6(h) of The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services
(House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules,
1992(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Rules of 1992’) in pursuance
of a complaint received by the authorities wherein, it was alleged
that the appellant was availing Government accommodation and
simultaneously drawing HRA. Notice was given to the appellant to
deposit a sum of Rs.3,96,814/- determined to have been drawn by
him as HRA without entitlement. By this very notice, the appellant
was given a chance to produce documents in proof to indicate that
the quarter in question, i.e., quarter No. 6-A was not under his
occupation/possession. As the appellant failed to satisfy the
authorities in this regard, the recovery notice was issued which
2
was subjected to challenge in the writ Court and the Letters Patent
Appeal albeit unsuccessfully.
4. Learned counsel Ms. Purnima Bhat, appearing on behalf of
the appellant urged that indisputably, the quarter in question had
been allotted in the name of appellant’s father who was a Retd.
Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant occasionally
shared the official accommodation allotted to his father. She urged
that the High Court glossed over the relevant clauses of Rule 6(h)
of Rules of 1992 while dismissing the writ petition as well as the
appeal filed by the appellant, inasmuch as only, one part of the
said rule was considered while ignoring the part which favourably
covers the case of the appellant. The pertinent contention raised
by the learned counsel was that had the High Court considered the
provisions contained in Rule 6(h)(iv), the recovery notice could not
have been sustained.
5. For the sake of ready reference, Rule 6(h) of Rules of 1992 is
reproduced hereinbelow: -
“ 6. The grant of House Rent Allowance shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(a)-(g)…..
(h) A Govt employee shall not be entitled to House Rent
Allowance if:
3
(i) he/she shares accommodation allotted rent
free to another Govt servant.
(ii) he/she resides in accommodation allotted to
his/her parents, son, daughter by the Govt;
(iii) his wife/her husband has been allotted
accommodation at the same station by the Govt
whether he/she resides in that accommodation or
he/she resides separately in accommodation rented
by him/her.
(iv) In cases where husband/wife/parents,
children two or more of them being State Govt
servants or employees of Central Govt, Autonomous
Public Undertakings or semi Govt Organizations
share accommodation allotted to another
Government Servant, House Rent Allowance will be
admissible to only one of them at their choice.
(v)….”
6. It was contended that admittedly quarter No. 6-A was allotted
to the appellant’s father, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who
retired from the post as a Gazetted Officer, and was a displaced
Kashmiri pandit . Thus, the appellant cannot be charged HRA on
account of occasional shared residence in the said quarter. She
thus, implored the Court to set aside the impugned orders and the
recovery notice.
7. Per contra , Mr. Parth Awasthi learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
He urged that indisputably, the appellant enjoyed residence in the
4
Government quarter allotted to his father and thus by virtue of
Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) reproduced supra , he was not entitled to claim
HRA. He thus, submitted that the impugned recovery notice is
justified in the eyes of law.
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material
available on record.
9. The father of the appellant herein namely, Mr. H.K. Munshi
had retired way back in the year 1993 and thus, it is axiomatic
that he would not be entitled to claim HRA after demitting office.
True it is that quarter No.6-A had been allotted to the appellant’s
father as being a displaced Kashmiri pandit and a retired
Government servant, but the fact remains that he would not be
entitled to HRA after superannuation from service. Thus, reliance
placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Rule 6(h)(iv) is
misplaced as the said provision has no application to the situation
at hand. Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii) which were pressed into service by
the High Court for rejecting the challenge laid by the appellant to
the recovery notice clearly cover the controversy. By virtue of these
two clauses, the appellant being a Government employee, could
not have claimed HRA while sharing rent free accommodation
5
allotted to his father, a retired Government servant. There is no
infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference.
10. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of
force.
11. No order as to costs.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………….……….J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
May 02, 2024.
6