Khurshid Ahmed vs State Of Haryana And Others

IN TH


207



Khurshid A



State of Ha


CORAM: HON

Present:- Ms. R
for th

Mr. P

Mr. N
Mr. A
For r



NIDHI GUPTA, J .

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-21435
Date of De
5-2025 (O&M)
ecision:- 28.10.2026
hmed
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate
he petitioner.
Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana
a.
Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate w
Akash Yadav, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 2 and 3
with

Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition und
er Articles 226/227 of the
e
Constitution of In
ndia has been filed by the petitio
oner for issuance of a writ in the
e
nature of certio
orari for quashing the impug
gned order dated 27.11.2024
4
(Annexure P-21)
passed by the respondent aut
hority qua the rejection of the
e
petitioner's legiti
mate claim for grant of House
Rent Allowance @ ₹50,000 per
r
month, during his
s tenure at the place of posting
as per the terms and conditions
s
clearly stipulated
d in his appointment letter dat
ted 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-1),
,
which unequivoc
ally provided for such entitleme
ent, the said impugned order is
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

arbitrary, illegal,
5 (O&M) - 2 -
unjustified, and unsustainable i
n the eyes of law, being passed
d
in contravention
of the Haryana Civil Service
es (Allowances to Government
t
Employees) Rules
s, 2016 and in derogation of the
e binding terms of appointment,
,
and is also viola
ative of Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India; and
d
further to issue
a writ in the nature of manda
mus directing the respondents
s
Release the rema
aining payment of Honorarium
, House Rent to the petitioner
r
w.e.f May, 2017
to February 2018 in accordanc
ce with the appointment order
r
dated 27.04.2017
7 (Annexure P-1) ergo just Rs. 2,4
44,440/- has been released. out
t
of Total House R
Rent Allowance (HRA) Rs. 5,00,
,000/- as admissible under the
e
Haryana Civil Ser
rvices (Allowances to Governme
ent Employees) Rules, 2016, for
r
the period from
May 2017 to April 2018 alon
ngwith interest accrued on the
e
delayed payment
ts of HRA, as the act of the res
spondents of not following the
e
instructions issue
ed by the Financial Commissi
oner, Government of Haryana
a
(Annexures P-10
to P-17); and further to issue d
direction to the respondents to
o
refund the dedu
uctions of Rs.3,03,264/- wrong
gly made by the respondents
s
towards vehicle
usage as the petitioner used
d the vehicle for government
t
purposes and su
ubmitted the requisite docume
entation, including an affidavit
t
(Annexure P-7).
2. It is
inter alia submitted by ld. coun
nsel for the petitioner that vide
e
order dated 27.0
04.2017 (Annexure P-1), petition
ner was appointed as Chairman
n
with the respond
ent - Mewat Development Agen
ncy, Nuh. It is submitted that as
s
per the terms an
nd conditions of appointment s
supplied to the petitioner vide
e
order dated 10.0
1.2018 (Annexure P-18), petitio
ner was entitled to Rs. 50,000/-
-
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

honorarium per
5 (O&M) - 3 -
month along with provision
ns of House Rent Allowance
e
(hereinafter refe
erred to as 'HRA'), Travelling
Allowance, etc. Although the
e
petitioner had st
arted serving the respondent, t
the abovesaid allowances were
e
not given to th
he petitioner. Accordingly, pet
itioner had sent letter dated
d
01.12.2017 (Anne
exure P-2) for release of the abo
ovesaid allowances in his favour.
.
In response ther
reto, petitioner was informed
that case is pending with the
e
Finance Departm
ent.
3. Subs
sequently, vide Communication
dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P-
-
3), petitioner wa
s informed that respondent No
o. 3 had issued a cheque for an
n
amount of Rs. 1,4
46,736/- after deducting vehicle
e charges of Rs. 3,03,264/- and

TDS of Rs. 50,000
0/-. Vide letters dated 20.03.201
18 and 28.03.2018 (Annexure P-
-
4 collectively), p
petitioner had sought details
of account. Vide letter dated
d
27.03.2019 (Anne
exure P-5), petitioner had also c
claimed HRA @ Rs. 50,000/- per
r
month and car re
nt @ Rs. 18/- per kilometer.
4. Ld. c
counsel submits that petitioner
r was put to great harassment
t
and dues payable
e to the petitioner were releas
sed to the petitioner only after
r
petitioner was c
constrained to approach this C
Court. It is submitted that the
e
grievance of the
petitioner in the present writ
petition is only for release of
f
House Rent Allow
wance @ Rs. 50,000/- per month
h during his tenure at the place
e
of posting as pe
r terms and conditions (Annex
xure P-18). It is submitted that
t
petitioner has no
ot been paid anything by wa
ay of HRA. The said amount
t
payable to the p
petitioner per month has bee
en arbitrarily rejected by the
e
respondents vide
e impugned order dated 27.11
.2024 (Annexure P-21) without
t
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

assigning any co
5 (O&M) - 4 -
ogent reason. It is contended
that Annexure P-18 nowhere
e
stipulates that an
n assessment is required to be
made by the PWD for grant of
f
HRA to the petitio
oner.
5. It is
submitted that the HRA wa
s mandatorily payable to the
e
petitioner and is
the legal entitlement of the pe
etitioner; as such, non-payment
t
of the same is a
rbitrary, illegal, unjust, unfair, a
and contrary to the terms and
d
conditions as laid
out in Annexure P-18.
6. Acco
ordingly, it is prayed that the pr
resent writ petition be allowed
d
and prays that “
“ a writ in the nature of certior
rari be issued for quashing the
e
impugned order
dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure P
P-21) passed by the respondent
t
authority qua the
e rejection of the petitioner's leg
itimate claim for grant of House
e
Rent Allowance @
@ ₹50,000 per month, during hi
is tenure at the place of posting
g
as per the terms a
and conditions clearly stipulated
d in his appointment letter dated
d
27.04.2017 (Anne
exure P-1), which unequivocally
y provided for such entitlement,

the said impugne
ed order is arbitrary, illegal, unju
stified, and unsustainable in the
e
eyes of law, be
eing passed in contravention
of the Haryana Civil Services
s
(Allowances to G
Government Employees) Rules, 2
2016 and in derogation of the
e
binding terms of
appointment, and is also violat
tive of Articles 14 and 16 of the
e
Constitution of In
dia.”
7. Per c
contra , ld. counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents,
,
supported by St
tate counsel, has vehemently
opposed submissions of the
e
petitioner and ha
ave contended that the impugne
ed order suffers from no error. It
t
is submitted that
in fact, the petitioner has sough
ht to mislead this Court and has
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

committed fraud
5 (O&M) - 5 -
upon the respondents. The imp
pugned order is a speaking order
r
and records all t
the correct facts which the pe
etitioner has not been able to
o
controvert. It is su
ubmitted that merely because th
he terms and conditions did not
t
expressly use
the word 'PWD assessme
nt' would not imply that
t
verification/asses
ssment was not necessary for de
etermining the actual amount of
f
HRA payable to t
the petitioner. Accordingly, pray
yer is made for dismissal of the
e
present writ petit
tion.
8. No o
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find no m
merit in the submissions advance
ed on behalf of the petitioner.
9. Peru
sal of the terms and condition
s of appointment (Annexure P-
-
18) reveals that in
n respect of House Rent Allowan
nce, it is stipulated as follows:-
“(3) (i) House Rent:
House rent allowance shall
be applicable @ Rs.50,000/-
-
(Rupees fifty thousand only
y) per month or actual rent
t
whichever is less.”
10. A ba
are reading of the above shows
that petitioner was entitled to
o
House Rent Allow
wance @ Rs. 50,000/- per mon
th; or actual rent, whichever is
s
less. It is the case
e of the petitioner that he had re
ented a premises bearing House
e
No. 278-A, 4 Ma
arla, Model Town, Gurugram, H
Haryana, and therefore, he was
s
entitled for HRA.
Accordingly, respondent Depa
rtment had asked petitioner to
o
furnish requisite
documents pertaining to the s
aid alleged rented premises. In
n
response thereto
o, petitioner had furnished Ren
t Agreement dated 18.01.2018
8
(Annexure P-11)
executed between one Mr. Pre
em Prakash, son of Mr. Kanwar
r
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

Bhan, and the pe
5 (O&M) - 6 -
etitioner in respect of 'Kothi No
o. 278-A, 4 Marla, Model Town,

Gurugram, Harya
ana'. Upon receiving the above
said information, on an inquiry
y
made by the resp
pondents, it was discovered tha
at no such property bearing No.
.
278-A, 4 Marla, M
Model Town, Gurugram for which
h petitioner had submitted Rent
t
Agreement exists
s; and that there exists a proper
rty bearing No. 278 which has a
a
shop on the grou
nd floor and the house on the o
other floor is owned by one Mrs.
.
Bindu Garg, wife
e of Mr. Vinod Kumar. Thus, Sh
. Prem Prakash, s/o of Kanwar
r
Bhan, with who
om petitioner had allegedly e
executed the Rent Agreement
t
(Annexure P-11),
is not the owner of House N
o. 278. When confronted with
h
these facts, learn
ed counsel for the petitioner is
unable to controvert the same.
.
On the contrary
y, ld. counsel repeatedly reite
erates that as per terms and
d
conditions of app
pointment (Annexure P-18), pet
itioner is entitled to HRA of Rs.
.
50,000/- per mon
nth.
11. Said
contention of the petitioner is
utterly misconceived. Annexure
e
P-18 clearly stipu
ulates that House Rent Allowan
nce of Rs. 50,000/- per month
h
shall be applicab
ble or ‘ actual rent, whichever i
is less. ’ Consequentially, it was
s
incumbent upon
the petitioner to demonstrate
e/establish that petitioner was
s
paying rent of a c
certain amount; whereafter, if t
the said amount was more than
n
Rs. 50,000/-, peti
itioner would be entitled to Rs.
50,000/-; and if the rent being
g
paid by the petiti
oner was less than Rs. 50,000/-,
, then the lesser amount of rent
t
would be payable
e to the petitioner.
12. In th
he present case, petitioner has
not been able to show that he
e
has rented any p
premises. Rather, petitioner ha
as sought to receive HRA on a
a
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

fraudulent basis.
5 (O&M) - 7 -
As such, petitioner is not ent
itled to HRA and his claim has
s
been rightly rejec
cted. Relevant extract of the im
mpugned order (Annexure P-21)
)
reads as under:
“3. A
And whereas, on the first, his cas
se is that once he had submitted
d
the R
Rent Agreement of Rs. 52000/- p
per month for House No. 278/4
4
Marl
la, Model Town, Gurugram, he
should have been paid HRA @
@
Rs. 5
50,000/- per month as the onl
ly terms and conditions in this
s
rega
ard was that he would be ent
titled to the lesser of the two
o
amo
unts. MDA's claim is that they
cannot pay him anything till a
a
PWD
D assessment has been done and
d that he has not been supplying
g
5 do
ocuments (1. Copy of building
g plan duly approved by the
e
conc
cerned authority, 2. Date of cons
struction of residence, 3. Copy of
f
regis
stry, lease deed papers etc.,
4. Affidavit from the owner
r
rega
arding rent assessed and work
kout by the PWD B&R will be
e
accep
pted, 5. Copy of Rent Agreemen
nt by the owner for Rs. 52,000/-
-
p.m.)
) asked from him to enable the
e said assessment. Sh. Ahmad's
s
case
is that the terms and condit
tion do not refer to any PWD
D
asses
ssment and that no other ch
hairperson has been asked to
o
prov
vide such documents. However,
data downloaded from DULB's
s
Prop
perty Tax ID does not show an
ny house bearing No. 278 A, 4
4
Marl
la, Model Town, Gurugram for w
which address he has submitted
d
the R
Rent Agreement. The only prop
perty listed there is No. 278, 4
4
Marl
la which has a shop on ground
floor and house on other floor
r
and
is owned by Mrs. Bindu Garg
wife of Vinod Kumar. The Rent
t
Agre
eement for 278A is in the name o
of Sh. Prem Parkash S/o Kanwar
r
Bhan
n. The record issue is much c
clearer after hearing him, the
e
repre
esentative of Mewat Developm
ment Agency, Nuh and going
g
throu
ugh the file. Hence, the claim for
r House Rent Allowance can't be
e
accep
pted.”
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-21435-2025

13. Ld. c
5 (O&M) - 8 -
counsel for the petitioner is una
ble to dispute or controvert the
e
abovesaid facts
and findings. Accordingly, the
e present writ petition stands
s
dismissed .
14. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.


28.10.2026
Neelam
( N

NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE


Wheth
Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.10.31 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document