it2025_00139 — Applicants who have arranged for their own accommodation in the absence of any Government accommodation have approached for direction to the Respondents not to recover the House Rent Allowance from the Applicants

Applicants who have arranged for their own accommodation in the absence of any Government accommodation have approached for direction to the Respondents not to recover the House Rent Allowance from the Applicants — This chunk is a part of a judicial ruling where the Tribunal directed the Respondents (Union of India) not to recover House Rent Allowance (HRA) from certain Applicants for a specific period, from 1-... — Facts: Vide Order, dated 21-11-2019 in O.A. Nos. 10 of 2018 and 186 of 2018, the Tribunal had passed an order that as regards the payment of HRA prior to 5-3-2019, i.e., from 1-1-2008 or 1-5-2008 as the case may be, the Applicants were directed to make a comprehensive representation and upon receipt of the same, the Respondents were directed to scrutinize the same and pass appropriate orders as per rules after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Applicants. In terms of the order, the Applicants submitted representations. However, by the impugned Order, dated 6-6-2020, the Respondents held that the Applicants are not eligible for HRA from 1-1-2018/1-6-2018, as the case may be, and directed recovery if the same has been already paid. Hence the two O.A. Nos. 125 and 128 have been filed. It was submitted that the Applicants serving under the Respondents for more than 10-30 years have arranged for alternate accommodation in the absence of any Government accommodation before shifting of different offices of CWC at Guwahati, where quarters were constructed. “Rule 7

(i) of the General Rules and Orders of the Government of India stipulates inter alia that a Government servant living in a house owned by him, his wife, children, father or mother shall also be eligible for HRA. In O.A. No. 365 of 2015, this Tribunal had directed the Respondents to release the HRA to the Applicant therein from the date of surrender of quarter by her. R.A. No. 14 of 2016 challenging the said order was also dismissed. In the guidelines for recovery as per DoP&T OM, dated 2-3-2016, following the decision of the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 11527 of 2014, State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih, recovery from employees in the following situations would be impermissible:

(i) recovery from Class – III and Class – IV (or Group 'C' and 'D') employees.

(ii) recovery from retired employees or due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

(iii) recovery when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) recovery where the employee has been wrongfully required to discharge duties of a higher post and paid accordingly.

(v) recovery in any other cases which the Court considers to be iniquitous, harsh or arbitrary.