K.K. Verma and Others vs University of Delhi and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.

W.P.(C) No. 3147/2007

There is a very limited issue in this writ petition. The issue is that can an employee get benefits of House Rent Allowances (HRA) while continuing to occupy the accommodation provided by the employer/college. Petitioners are employees of the respondent no. 3/Hindu College under the University of Delhi. Petitioners were allotted accommodations by the respondent no. 3-college. Petitioners occupied the accommodations and also had received HRA. It is this illegally paid HRA which is sought to be recovered by the respondent no. 3-college which is being challenged and also the refusal to grant HRA for the period of occupation of the accommodations by the petitioners.

The law in this regard is now well settled by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, . Para 14 of this judgment is relevant and the same reads as under:-

We are concerned with the excess payment of public money which is often described as "tax payers money" which belongs neither to the officers who have effected over-payment nor to the recipients. We fail to see why the concept of fraud or misrepresentation is being brought in such situations. The question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not may be due to a bona fide mistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by the Government officers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such situation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise where both the payer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual. Payments are being effected in many situations without any authority of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authority of law. Any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the money, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment.

(Emphasis added)

The aforesaid para is indeed a very telling paragraph and it revolves earlier observations made in different judgments by observing that the moneys in question being tax payers'' money, cannot be retained illegally although moneys may have been paid under a mistake or bonafidely made or made for any other reason, and mere fact that moneys have been illegally paid is good enough reason to recover back the amounts which have been paid without any legal sanction.

In the present case, nothing could be pointed out to me in the form of any averment which is made in the writ petition that the petitioners are entitled to continue to receive HRA though the accommodations are granted by the employer and occupied by the petitioners/employees. Therefore, the amounts received towards HRA have been received without any sanction by law and the employer is entitled to recover the same and prevent the payments in future.

Counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that accommodations were in bad condition and petitioners had an animal existence in the accommodations and therefore there is no reason not to grant HRA. I have found this only a convenient argument to say the least because if the petitioners felt that there was animal existence in the bad quarters, then nothing prevented the petitioners from surrendering the quarters for claiming the HRA. Employees can be surely asked in terms of the contract to maintain the house and spend amounts towards maintenance, and which expenditure would therefore become part of the rent, however, only for that reason it cannot be argued that HRA will be paid although the petitioners also have accommodations. If according to the petitioners they were better of in receiving HRA instead of maintaining the accommodations then petitioners should have simply walked out of accommodations by surrendering the same and then claim HRA. This was admittedly not done by the petitioners.

I may note that on behalf of UGC it is stated that the stopping of the HRA where an employee has accommodation allotted by the college is w.e.f. 2.12.1998. Accordingly, if the petitioners have received any amount towards HRA prior to 2.12.1998 such amounts will not be recovered by the college or the UGC. May as in 1961 UGC had allowed both HRA and allotment of accommodation, but surely UGC was entitled to change its policy of not granting both, and which was accordingly done w.e.f. 2.12.1998 by withdrawing HRA where the employee also had been allotted accommodation. In 1998 the rental value would be much more than in 1961 and which would be one reason for not granting both HRA and the accommodation. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

W.P. (C) No. 3657/2007

This writ petition will also stand dismissed in terms of observations made while disposing of W.P. (C) No. 3147/2007. I may mention that there is a relief claimed in this writ petition of the amounts to be paid by the college-employer to the petitioners for charges incurred by the petitioners towards maintenance and renovation of the accommodation, however, when a query was put to the counsel for the petitioners to show any document of the college or the UGC that petitioners are entitled to reimbursement, no such document could be pointed out. This relief is also therefore declined. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

W.P. (C) Nos. 3583/2007, 3984/2007 and 3401/2007

Counsel for the petitioners states that facts in these cases are almost identical to the facts of the aforesaid cases so far as the issues and reliefs are concerned.

Accordingly, these writ petitions are also dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Costs of Rs. 2,000/- each in W.P. (C) Nos. 3147/2007, 3401/2007 and 3657/2007 have been received by the counsel for respondent no. 1.