Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a retired Inspector (Telecom) of Jammu and Kashmir Police challenging a recovery notice for House Rent Allowance (HRA) drawn without entitlement. The appellant had superannuated on 30th April 2014. He received a communication from the Director Police, Telecom demanding recovery of Rs.3,96,814/- on the ground that he had been drawing HRA while sharing government accommodation (Quarter No. 6-A) allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police. The action was taken under Rule 6(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992. The appellant challenged the recovery notice before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in SWP No. 3440 of 2014, which was dismissed on 19th December 2019. He then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 38 of 2020), which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 27th September 2021. The appellant argued that Rule 6(h)(iv) of the Rules, which allows HRA to one of the sharing employees when two or more government servants share accommodation, should apply. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant's father had retired in 1993 and was not a government servant entitled to HRA. Therefore, Rule 6(h)(iv) had no application. The Court held that clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 6(h) clearly disentitle a government employee from claiming HRA when he shares rent-free accommodation allotted to another government servant or his parents. The recovery notice was justified, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - House Rent Allowance - Recovery of Unauthorized Drawals - Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 - The appellant, a retired police inspector, shared government accommodation allotted to his retired father and drew HRA. The court held that under Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii), an employee sharing rent-free accommodation allotted to another government servant or his parents is not entitled to HRA. The recovery of HRA drawn without entitlement was upheld. (Paras 3-10) B) Service Law - House Rent Allowance - Applicability of Rule 6(h)(iv) - Rule 6(h)(iv) of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992 - The appellant argued that Rule 6(h)(iv) allows HRA to one of the sharing employees. The court rejected this, noting that the father was a retired government servant not entitled to HRA, so the provision did not apply. (Paras 4-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a government employee who shares rent-free accommodation allotted to his retired father is entitled to House Rent Allowance under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. Recovery notice upheld. No order as to costs.
