Safety-category railway employees are not entitled to HRA when necessary quarters are offered.

Railway Quarter No. E-IV/A was allotted to the applicant, a Track Maintainer-IV, on 1 March 2025.

He claimed that he neither accepted possession nor occupied the quarter, and that he had sought cancellation of the allotment through representations dated 10 March and 9 April 2025.

After his transfer to Agra on 31 May 2025, where no railway accommodation was allotted, HRA continued to be withheld from his salary.

The respondents maintained that the quarter had been allotted for administrative reasons connected with his Safety Category duties and that the allotment had not been formally cancelled.

The applicant sought cancellation of the allotment and release of HRA arrears with interest; the Tribunal dismissed the OA.

Whether the applicant was entitled to HRA despite not occupying the railway quarter allotted to him for administrative reasons related to his Safety Category duties.

Whether the applicant’s representations and subsequent transfer automatically cancelled the quarter allotment, entitling him to HRA arrears.

The Tribunal relied on Railway Board letter No. E(P&A)II/87/HRA/15 dated 16 May 1988, under which the HRA concession is unavailable to employees for whom railway accommodation is specifically earmarked or whose occupation of quarters is considered necessary for accessibility during emergencies and efficient discharge of duties; in such cases, surrender may be permitted subject to operational requirements.

It also considered the Central Government General Pool Residential Accommodation Rules, 2017, particularly Rules 15 and 17, concerning acceptance of allotment and consequences of non-acceptance or failure to take possession, but held that those rules could not override the specific Railway Board instructions applicable to this case.

The Tribunal further relied on The Divisional Engineer, G.I.P. Railway v. Mahadeo Raghoo, 1955 (1) SCR 134, for the principle that HRA is not an absolute or indefeasible entitlement where Government accommodation has been offered under the applicable rules.

It also referred to Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod v. M. Purushothaman, AIR 1994 SC 2541, and D. Peri Reddy v. Govt. of A.P., 1997 (1) ALT 721, in support of the compensatory nature of HRA and the proposition that an employee cannot insist on an allowance as an unconditional right.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s post as Track Maintainer-IV had been classified as a Safety Category post and that the allotment was made to ensure his availability for emergencies, rather than merely as an ordinary residential allotment.

It held that his preference to reside in his own accommodation and his requests for cancellation did not establish a right to HRA, particularly as no competent authority had formally cancelled the allotment.

The Tribunal distinguished the applicant’s reliance on the 2017 Rules and the decision in Subhra Jyoti Choudhury, finding that the specific Railway Board instructions and the operational requirements of his Safety Category post governed the case.

It also held that transfer to Agra did not, by itself, establish automatic cancellation of the earlier allotment.

It dismissed the OA, denied the requested cancellation and HRA arrears with interest, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs.