Mewat Agency Chairman Loses ₹50,000 Monthly HRA Claim After P&H HC Finds Claimed Address Did Not Exist And Agreement Signer Was Not Owner

The petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Mewat Development Agency, Nuh, and relied on his appointment terms for House Rent Allowance (HRA) of up to ₹50,000 per month, subject to actual rent, whichever was less.

He sought HRA for his tenure and challenged the respondents’ order dated 27 November 2024 rejecting his claim.

The respondents questioned the rent documentation: the agreement concerned premises described as “278-A,” but the property records showed no such property, and the agreement’s stated landlord was not the owner of the identified property.

The petitioner also had not supplied documents requested for verification and assessment.

The court applied the appointment term providing for HRA of ₹50,000 per month or actual rent, whichever was less.

It held that, under this term, the claimant had to establish that rent was being paid; the allowance was capped at ₹50,000, while a lower actual rent would limit the amount payable.

Although the petitioner invoked the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rules, 2016, and constitutional Articles 14 and 16, the judgment does not identify or apply a specific provision of those Rules or a precedent as the basis for its decision.

The court found that the appointment term did not make the full allowance automatic: payment depended on proof of actual rent, subject to the stated cap.

The petitioner’s rent agreement referred to premises numbered 278-A, while the property records identified only property No. 278; moreover, the person named as landlord in the agreement was not the recorded owner.

In light of these discrepancies and the petitioner’s failure to establish that he had rented the premises, the court held that the claim had been rightly rejected.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.