J&K Civil Services| Govt. Employee Cannot Claim HRA While Sharing Rent Free Accommodation Alloted To His Father, A Kashmiri Pandit & Retired Govt. Employee: SC
The Supreme Court held that, under Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992, a Government Employee cannot claim House Rent Allowance if he is sharing government accommodation provided to his father, a retired Govt. Employee.
The bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “appellant being a Government employee, could not have claimed HRA while sharing rent free accommodation allotted to his father, a retired Government servant.”
Brief Facts-
The appellant R.K. Munshi, a former Inspector (Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, received a communication regarding the recovery of outstanding rentals due to unauthorised drawals of House Rent Allowance (HRA). The action was taken under Rule 6(h) of The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992, based on a complaint. The appellant was asked to deposit a certain amount as determined HRA without entitlement. The appellant failed to satisfy the authorities when asked to prove dispossession of the quarters. The recovery notice was challenged unsuccessfully.
“6. The grant of House Rent Allowance shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a)-(g)..
(h)(iv) In cases where husband/wife/parents, children two or more of them being State Govt servants or employees of Central Govt, Autonomous Public Undertakings or semi Govt Organizations share accommodation allotted to another Government Servant, House Rent Allowance will be admissible to only one of them at their choice.”
The Court perused the Rule 6(h)(iv) of Rules of 1992 that was relied on by the petitioner for the argument that had the High Court considered the provisions contained therein the recovery notice could not have been sustained.
According to the Court the father of the appellant herein namely, Mr. H.K. Munshi had retired way back in the year 1993 and thus, it is axiomatic that he would not be entitled to claim HRA after demitting office. True it is that quarter No.6-A had been allotted to the appellant’s father as being a displaced Kashmiri pandit and a retired Government servant, but the fact remains that he would not be entitled to HRA after superannuation from service.
As per the Court, the reliance placed by appellant on Rule 6(h)(iv) is misplaced as the said provision has no application to the situation at hand.
The Court stated that the Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii) which were pressed into service by the High Court for rejecting the challenge laid by the appellant to the recovery notice clearly cover the controversy.
The Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: R.K. Munshi v. UT of Jammu & Kashmir (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 365)
