0

“GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, CAN’T CLAIM HRA WHILE SHARING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION ALLOTTED TO HIS FATHER, A RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT: SUPREME COURT”

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

“GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, CAN’T CLAIM HRA WHILE SHARING RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION ALLOTTED TO HIS FATHER, A RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT: SUPREME COURT”

Case title: R.K Munshi v/s Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors
Case no.: SLP (CIVIL) NO. 43 OF 2022
Dated on: 02nd May 2024
Quorum: Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Hon’ble Mr. B.R. Gavai

FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant was working as an telecom inspector in Jammu and Kashmir, he was issued a recovery notice under Rule 6(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 due to a complaint of availing government accommodation while drawing HRA. Appellant failed to prove that the quarter in question was not under his occupation/possession, recovery notice was challenged in writ court and Letters Patent Appeal unsuccessful. Appellant’s counsel argued that the quarter was allotted in the name of his father, a Retd. Deputy superintendent of police, and he occasionally shared the accommodation. Appellant was asked to deposit Rs.3,96,814/- as unauthorized HRA drawn.
The director police, telecom communicated about recovery of outstanding rentals due to unauthorized HRA drawls by the appellant the High court’s dismissal of the writ petition and appeal did not consider all relevant clauses of rule 6(h) of Rules of 1992, the court only focused only one part of the rule while overlooking the part that was in favour of the appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Learned counsel for appellant submits that indisputable, the quarter in question had been allotted in the name of appellant’s father who was a Retd. Dy SP. The appellant occasionally shared the official accommodation allotted to his father. Later appellant counsel urged that the High Court glossed over the relevant clauses of Rule 69(h) of Rules of 1992 while dismissing the writ petition as well as the appeal flied by the appellant. The pertinent contention raised by the learned counsel was that had the High Court considered the provisions contained in Rule6(h)(iv), the recovery notice could not have been sustained.
Later he submits that the appellant cannot be charged HRA on account of occasional shared residence in the said quarter. The implored the court to set aside the impugned orders and the recovery notice.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Submission by the Respondents, has argued that the fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the Learned counsel for appellant. He urged that indisputably, the appellant enjoyed residence in the Government quarter allotted to his father and thus by virtue of Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) reproduced supra, he was not entitled to claim HRA. He thus, submitted that the impugned recovery notice is justified in the eyes of law. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 6(h) of Rules of Jammu and Kashmir civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992.
Rule 6(h) of Rules of 1992: A government employee shall not be entitled to HRA (House Rent Allowance)

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The appellant’s father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police and a displaced Kashmiri pandit, was allotted quarter No 6-A. Rule 6(h) of Rules of 1992 outlines conditions for House Rent Allowance, including restrictions on entitlement if sharing accommodation or residing in government-allotted quarters. Under Rule 6(h), a government employee is not entitled to House Rent Allowance if residing in accommodation allotted to parents, son, or daughter by the government. The rule also restricts entitlement if the employee’s spouse has been allotted accommodation at the same station, regardless of whether they reside together or separately. In cases where multiple family members who are government employees share accommodation allotted to another government servant, House Rent Allowance is admissible to only one of them as chosen. The appellant’s father retired in 1993 and is not entitled to claim HRA post-retirement. Quarter No.6-A was allotted to the appellant’s father as a displaced Kashmiri pandit and retired government servant. Being retired, the appellant’s father is not entitled to receive HRA. The court has considered the submissions made and reviewed the available record. The appellant, being a Government employee, was not entitled to claim HRA while sharing rent-free accommodation allotted to his father, a retired Government servant. Rule 6(h)(iv) cited by the appellant does not apply to the current situation. Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii) cited by the High Court in rejecting the challenge to the recovery notice cover the controversy. Hence the appeal is dismissed ass devoid of force no order as to costs is issued. Pending applications (s) if any, stand disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – HARIRAGHAVA JP

Click here to read the judgement

0

Supreme Court Decides in Favor of Citizens’ Job Security, Rejects State’s Attempt to Endanger Careers

Blog , , , , , , ,

Case Name: Deependra Yadav and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors 

Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5817 of` 2023 

Dated: May 1, 2024 

Quorum: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The case’s circumstances are such that a single misstep by the State was all it took to start this lawsuit, which will affect a large number of job seekers in the state of Madhya Pradesh. A service regulation that had been in place before was altered on February 17, 2020, and then recalled on December 20, 2021, returning it to its previous state. During this interim period, the changed rule was implemented to a hiring procedure that was still in progress. This led to numerous challenges before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur, which produced a number of rulings and directives that eventually led to the matters that are currently before us. 

For the purpose of selecting candidates for 571 vacancies in the State services, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) published an advertisement on November 14, 2019, suggesting that candidates follow the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (abbreviated as “the Rules of 2015”).  

Under the proviso to Article 309 of the Indian Constitution, the Rules of 2015 were formulated in the exercise of power. A preliminary exam, main exam, and interviews were all part of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019 that the MPPSC planned to hold in order to fill these positions.  

On January 12, 2020, the preliminary examination was conducted. The preliminary examination was registered by 3,64,877 candidates in total, however only 3,18,130 of those candidates showed up for it. At that point, the State of Madhya Pradesh revised Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 on February 17, 2020. Before the alteration and to the extent that it is relevant for the purposes of this adjudication. 

It was unexpected that the revised Rule 4 was used in the current hiring procedure for the 571 announced open positions. On December 21, 2020, the results of the preliminary examination that was held on January 12, 2020, were announced using the revised Rule 4. Meritorious candidates from the reserved category were therefore displayed exclusively in their designated reservation categories, and there was no separation of them from those from the unreserved category. On the basis of this, 10,767 individuals passed the preliminary examination. 

During this time, certain candidates contested the provisions of the modified Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 in a series of writ cases filed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur. The High Court ruled in those cases that the hiring procedure that was started in response to the preliminary examination result dated 21.12.2020 would continue to be contingent on the resolution of the writ petitions by means of an interim order dated 22.01.2021. 

In accordance with this, the MPPSC held the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019 main exam from March 21–26, 2021. In the meantime, the State of Madhya Pradesh modified the Rules of 2015 once again on December 20, 2021.  

Despite this modification, the MPPSC announced on December 31, 2021, the results of the primary examination, which took place between March 21 and 26, 2021, and the 1918 candidates who met the eligibility requirements for interviews on a provisional basis. On April 7, 2022, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur, however, partially granted the writ petitions that were still pending. It was approved by a knowledgeable judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

It was contended that a Division Bench of the High Court received an appeal from three of the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023, who were upset by this ruling. By ruling on January 25, 2023, in Writ Appeal No. 1706 of 2022, the Division Bench denied the appeal, concluding that the learned Judge’s order was reasonable, correct, and well-reasoned and did not require intervention. 

The appellants also contended that the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015, had their Rule 4 amended on February 17, 2020, and then repealed on December 20, 2021. The appellants contested this change. The argument put forth was that the recruitment procedure should not have been subject to the modified rule. 

It was their contention that the recruitment process, which commenced on November 14, 2019, with an advertisement for 571 vacancies, was unfairly affected by the modified rule. On January 12, 2020, a preliminary examination was conducted as part of this process. 

The arguments put up by the appellants most likely concerned the interpretation of constitutional clauses, including the proviso to Article 309 of the Indian Constitution, which provided the framework for the Rules of 2015. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The respondents argued that an ongoing hiring procedure was impacted when the State of Madhya Pradesh changed an already-existing service rule that was later recalled. Application to Recruitment: A number of legal issues resulted from the application of the modified rule to the 571 posts that were recruited. 

The Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 underwent a recall on December 20, 2021, following the revision of Rule 4 on February 17, 2020. The state also contended that Accordingly, the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019 main exam was conducted by the MPPSC from March 21–26, 2021. Meanwhile, on December 20, 2021, the State of Madhya Pradesh changed the Rules of 2015 once more.  

The lawsuit was started as a result of the modified rule being applied to the hiring process, which was already in progress. On January 12, 2020, a large number of candidates took part in the preliminary exam for the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019. 

The learned counsel for the repondent also contended that The preliminary examination results, which were revealed on January 12, 2020, were made public on December 21, 2020, utilising the updated Rule 4. This meant that deserving candidates from the reserved category were only shown in the reservation categories that they were assigned, and there was no distinction between them and applicants from the unreserved field. Based on this, 10,767 people were able to pass the initial test. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court noted that Madhya Pradesh’s government moved forward based on the results announced following normalisation and that it also gave appointment orders to the chosen applicants, allowing them to begin serving. About the seven petitioners in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023, the MPPSC said that only three of them were qualified to take the main examination because they had passed the preliminary exam, according to the pre-revised result dated 21.12.2020. 

Nevertheless, two of them showed up for the primary exam but failed, while one of them did not. Following that, all seven of them were deemed eligible based on the results of the televised preliminary test, which was released on October 10, 2022. However, they were found to be ineligible for the special main examination and the subsequent normalisation process, which was announced on May 18, 2023. 

Notably, the High Court acknowledged that Vaishali Wadhwani and other petitioners had somewhat succeeded in their case because their writ petitions were partially granted by the ruling, which also instructed the MPPSC to combine and harmonise the two lists—the outcome of the special main examination and the first main examination. A Writ was filed before a Division Bench of the High Court, as previously mentioned, challenging the MPPSC’s exact identical judgement. The appeal is currently being reviewed.  

Significantly, the applications submitted by Vaishali Wadhwani and associates, aiming to lift the stay of the judgement of August 23, 2023, were rejected, and their challenge to the ruling was not entertained.  

Additionally, the court pointed out that following the dismissal of the review petitions, the ruling in Kishor Choudhary (previous) was not challenged before this Court. It provided instructions on how to conduct and finish the examination process in compliance with the 2015 Rules as they were written. The later ruling in Harshit Jain (above) supported the process of conducting a special main examination for applicants under the reservation category who were deemed eligible after the preliminary examination result was revised in accordance with the unamended Rules of 2015.  

Based on the aforementioned consideration, the court determined that there is no basis for interference with the contested judgement, dated January 25, 2023, issued by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur in a Writ Appeal, either on the basis of facts or the law. Because of this, the civil appeal resulting from the current case was deemed to be without merit and was thus rejected. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

 

Click to view judgment.

 

 

 

0

Article 311(1) Guarantees Right To Fair Enquiry to Govt Employees: Karnataka High Court

blog, Blog , ,

Case Title:- DR. YOGANANDA A versus THE VISVESVARAYA TECHONOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY and others

Case No:-WRIT PETITION NO.21705 OF 2021 (S-RES)

Decided on:-18-03-2024

Quorum:-THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

Facts of the case:-

The case at hand concerns the Governing Council’s disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which led to a recommendation for the petitioner’s mandatory retirement and as a result the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No. 3-Registrar has sent out a second show-cause notice signaling the imposition of a penalty. This has raised concerns about procedural inconsistencies and possible violations of Article 311(1) of the Indian Constitution. In light of this, the petitioner in the captioned petition has contested the respondent No. 2’s contested order imposing a mandatory retirement penalty, which is listed in Annexure-A.

Contentions:-

Learned counsel of petitioner states that in the present case on hand, petitioner is challenging imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement recommended by the Governing Council and the subsequent issuance of second show cause notice by Respondent No.3. This Court in the light of the judgments cited by the counsel on record has deliberated on Constitutional and legal provisions along with pertinent precedents. Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India Guarantees certain safeguards to Government employees including the right to fair enquiry before any adverse action is taken against the employees. This constitutional provision ensures that no Government employee is deprived of their livelihood arbitrary or without due process. It would be useful for this Court to take cognizance of the Landmark judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others.The Hon’ble Apex Court while examining the employees right to have a reasonable opportunity to refute and offer his explanation to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer was of the view that right to show cause against the findings of the enquiry report is considered to be an essential part of a reasonable opportunity incorporated earlier in Section 240(3) of Government of India Act and later in Article 311(2) of Constitution as originally enacted.

The Apex Court was of the view that right to receive the enquiry officer’s report and to show cause against the findings in the report was independent of the right to show cause against the penalty proposed. The Apex Court while noticing the anomaly prior to amendment and post 42nd amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution Of India was of the view that the two rights came to be confused with each other as the law stood prior to 42nd Amendment to the constitution. The Apex Court noting that 42nd amendment of constitution dispenses with issuance of notice to show cause against the penalty proposed held that if the law as it stood prior to 42nd amendment and notice is issued to show cause against the proposed penalty the right of employee to receive the report and represent against the finding of guilt would be rendered infructuous. What can be gathered from the dictum laid down by the Apex Court is that prior to 42nd amendment, both issuance of show cause notice and the commencement of disciplinary proceedings are simultaneous. However, subsequent amendments preclude such concurrent actions. Amending the sequential process wherein show cause notice must precede by furnishing of enquiry report on the delinquent employee. The culled out portion of the proceedings of the governing council clearly indicates that it is the Governing Council by recommending to impose penalty has virtually Preempted the right of the Disciplinary Authority to receive explanation and then apply its mind as to whether this is a fit case to impose penalty. Therefore, it is clearly evident that respondent No.3/Registrar/Disciplinary Authority being Sub-ordinate to the Governing Council had no discretion to independently evaluate the situation or apply its own judgment.

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

Court stated that the writ petition is allowed; The impugned penalty of compulsory retirement passed by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby quashed; The respondent No.3-Disciplinary Authority is hereby directed to adhere to the Mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment cited supra and also take cognizance Of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India and shall issue a fresh show cause notice in accordance with law; If such a show cause notice is issued, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to offer fresh explanation and the respondent No.3 shall thereafter proceed to take appropriate action by strictly adhering to the findings and observations recorded by this court supra.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement