AJIT KUMAR SINGH vs MS BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR

2026:JHHC:32272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 4349 of 2018
Ajit Kumar Singh, son of Late Markandey Singh, resident of
6e, Subhashree Apartment, Opposite Ban Bandhu Parishad,
Bariatu Road, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
…… Petitioners
V E R S U S
1. M/S Bharat Coaking Coal Limited through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director having its office at Kolya Nagar, P.O
& P.S-Kolya Nagar District-Dhanbad.
2. The Director Personnel, B.C.C.L, At P.O- Kolya Nagar, P.O
& P.S- Kolya Nagar District-Dhanbad.
3. The H.O.D (Administration), B.C.C.L, Kolya Nagar, P.O &
P.S-Kolya Nagar District-Dhanbad.
4. Senior Manager (Administration), B.C.C.L, Kolya Nagar,
P.O & P.S- Kolya Nagar District-Dhanbad.
…… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…

For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
….…..
C.A.V. ON: 06/08/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:04/11/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioner praying therein for quashing of the orders dated
27.04.2017 (Annexure-6), 09.02.2018 (Annexure-8) and
18.10.2023 (Annexure 10); whereby payment of House Rent
Allowance (HRA) for the period 01.03.2011 to 29.02.2012 and
01.09.2016 to 30.04.2017 has been rejected.
3. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the
petitioner was appointed on 01.09.1983 and was posted as
Welfare Officer at Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
4. A letter dated 10/14.12.2010 was issued by the Area
Manager, P.B Area, BCCL addressed to the Personnel Manager,
1

2026:JHHC:32272
CCWO Saraidhella to advise the petitioner to vacate Qr. No. C –
49 situated at Karmik Nagar and accommodate him elsewhere.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner vacated quarter No. C – 49
allotted to him on 01.03.2011 and shifted to his own house. On
10.03.2011, the petitioner made an application for payment of
HRA in prescribed format. However, sanction for payment of HRA
was given from March 2012.
5. In April 2012 the petitioner was transferred from BCCL
to CCL; another subsidiary company of Coal India Limited, and
thereafter again in September, 2016 he was transferred back to
BCCL. The petitioner submitted his joining in BCCL on
19.09.2016 and made an application for payment of HRA w.e.f.
19.09.2016 i.e. the date of his joining. However, the competent
authority sanctioned payment of HRA w.e.f. 27.04.2017 instead
of 19.09.2016 by placing reliance on FD’s decision dated
02.02.2015 which provided that sanction of the HRA will be
prospective.

6. Mrs. Shruti Srestha, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
draws attention of this Court to Annexure – 7 to the writ petition
which is the Coal India Executives House Rent Allowance Rules,
2010 in order to submit that as per Clause 4.2 of the Rules
aforesaid “An Executive who refuses or surrenders
accommodation offered to him by the Company shall not be eligible
for House Rent Allowance except for those executives who
2

2026:JHHC:32272
surrender the company’s accommodation to reside in the house
owned by him/wife / children / father / mother.”
7. Placing reliance on clause 4.2 of the Coal India
Executives, HRA Rules, 2010, the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the
petitioner was residing in his own house for the period
commencing from 01.03.2011 to 29.01.2012 and 01.09.2016 to
30.04.2017. Therefore, the action of the respondents in
sanctioning HRA from the date on which the competent authority
granted approval for payment of HRA is absolutely illegal and
arbitrary.
8. Ld. Counsel further submits that the petitioner cannot
be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the respondents
for keeping the matter pending for month’s altogether and
thereafter taking a stand that HRA would payable only from the
date of sanction by the competent authority.
9. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Ld. Counsel representing the
respondents defended the impugned orders. He submits that
that House Rent Allowance is admissible to an executive posted
in BCCL only after sanction by the competent authority which is
always prospective and the same is applied uniformly to all
executives. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
Resolutions of the Functional Directors dated 02.02.2015
3

2026:JHHC:32272
circulated vide letter dated 18.02.2015 which clearly provides
that all the sanction of the HRA will be prospectively.
10. Ld. Counsel further submits that for executives, Coal
India Limited formulates rules and regulations in respect of
various issues of service conditions and are circulated to all the
subsidiaries of CIL where these rules are adopted after
deliberations in meeting of their Functional Directors meet.
Different subsidiary adopts the rules made by CIL keeping in
view the ground realities of that subsidiary company, such as
availability of quarter, financial position of the company at the
relevant time etc.
11. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and after going
through the records of the case it transpires that for the period
01.03.2011 to 29.02.2012 and 01.09.2016 to 30.04.2017, the
petitioner was residing in his own house. Admittedly, no official
accommodation was allotted to him by the respondent company
for the period in question.
The respondents also do not deny the admissibility of
the House Rent Allowance if no official accommodation is allotted
to the employee.
12. The contention of the respondents that HRA is payable
only from the date on which the competent authority sanctions
it, is not at all acceptable to this Court for the plain and simple
reason that the employee cannot be made to suffer for the
4

2026:JHHC:32272
inaction on the part of the respondents to take prompt decision
on the application of the employee.
13. In the case in hand, the petitioner had applied for
payment of HRA on 10.03.2011 which was sanctioned after a
long delay of 1 year i.e. from March 2012. Similarly for the second
period, application for HRA was made on 19.09.2016 but
sanction was given only on 27.04.2017 i.e. after a delay of about
8 months.
Certainly, the petitioner cannot be faulted with for this
inordinate delay in sanctioning the HRA by the Competent
Authority.
14. Furthermore, the Coal India Executives, House Rent
Allowances Rules, 2010; more particularly clause 4.2, clearly
stipulates that an executive shall be entitled to HRA if he resides
in the house owned by him / wife / children / father / mother.
Admittedly, the petitioner was residing in his own house for the
period in question.

15. This Court is also of the view that the resolution of the
Functional Directors of the respondent company circulated vide
letter dated 18.02.2015 which provides that sanction of the HRA
will be prospective cannot override the Coal India Executive,
House Rent Allowance Rules, 2010.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the
impugned orders dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure – 6), 09.02.2018
5

2026:JHHC:32272
(Annexure - 8) and 18.10.2023 (Annexure – 10), are hereby,
quashed and set aside.
17. The respondents are accordingly directed to calculate
the arrears of House Rent Allowance for the period 01.03.2011
to 29.02.2012 and 01.09.2016 to 30.04.2017 and make payment
of the same to the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order; failing which
the petitioner shall also be entitled for simple interest, over and
above the calculated amount of HRA @ 7% per annum from the
date of entitlement till the date of actual payment.

18. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands allowed
in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, stand closed.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:04/11/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded
5.11.2026




6