### HRA is Inadmissible Where Vacant Official Accommodation is Available and the Employee Fails to Apply.

The petitioner, a Railway official (promoted to Senior Assistant Financial Advisor/Vigilance Officer), vacated his allotted Type-II government accommodation on 22.09.2007 to move into his own private residence

He claimed House Rent Allowance (HRA) from 25.09.2007, but the Railway authorities only granted it from 14.07.2009—the date his vacated quarter was allotted to another official

The petitioner challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which rejected his claim on 30.01.2015

Initially, the High Court allowed the writ in 2018, but upon a Review Petition by the Union of India, the case was restored to address evidence regarding the availability of vacant Type-IV quarters during the disputed period

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) for the period from 25.09.2007 to 13.07.2009 despite the availability of vacant official quarters.

2. Whether the grant of HRA to other officers constituted a ground of discrimination entitling the petitioner to similar relief.

Railway Board Circulars dated 07.06.1988 and 09.05.2003, which stipulate that HRA is inadmissible if an employee surrenders or fails to apply for accommodation when surplus units are available

Paragraph 1(b) and 6 of the 1988 Circular and Paragraph 3 of the 2003 Circular mandate that if residential units remain vacant due to lack of demand, employees entitled to such types are ineligible for HRA

Under Article 226, the High Court acts in a supervisory capacity, not as an appellate body, and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a manifest error of law or injustice, as established in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank (2003) and Shamshad Ahmed v. Tilak Raj Bajaj (2008)

The Court examined RTI records and departmental communications which revealed that as of 25.09.2007, there were seven vacant Type-IV quarters—the category the petitioner was entitled to

Since the number of vacant units exceeded the number of eligible officers, the mandatory provisions of the 2003 Circular applied, making it compulsory to apply for accommodation to be eligible for HRA

The petitioner admittedly failed to apply for a Type-IV quarter

The Court rejected the petitioner’s plea of discrimination regarding 15 other officers; it noted that most were either in different categories (Type-V), different locations (Silchar/Kolkata), or had received HRA under different circumstances

Crucially, the Court held that even if some officers were wrongly granted HRA, the petitioner could not claim "negative equality," as Article 14 does not envisage the perpetuation of an illegality

Furthermore, as the petitioner had already received the disputed HRA amount pursuant to an interim order in the Review Petition, the Court directed him to refund the said amount to the Railway authorities within one month