AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.09.2011 made to O.S. No. 87/2011 at Annexure - ''D'' on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench at Bangalore. For the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the respondent herein is referred to as the petitioner.
The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition may be stated as under:
The respondent/petitioner filed an application in OA. No. 87/2011 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, ''CAT'') at Bangalore u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to consider her representation with regard to granting of HRA from March 2009 and also to quash the official memorandum bearing No. A11/52739/Sec. III dated 04.02.2011 (Annexure - ''A16'') and No. A11/52739/Sec. III dated 21.02.3011 (Annexure - ''A17'') on the file of the Director., National Aerospace Laboratories, Bangalore and also declare the Proviso to Para 7.7 of CSIR (Residence Allotment) Rules, 1977 (Annexure - ''A19'') as ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution.
It is the case of the applicant that she was appointed as Junior Stenographer on 21.11.1990 and on 23.10.1992 she was promoted as Senior Stenographer. On 26.02.1993, she married to her co-employee by name S.T. anandan and they lived together in the premises bearing No. 28, Deveraja Mudaliar Street, Sivan Chetty Oarden, Bangalore. It is further stated that Drawing Officer was drawing HRA and paying the same to the petitioner. But, without any valid reason, respondent No. 1 cancelled granting of HRA from the month of March 2009. It is stated that she is continuously residing in the premises bearing No. 28, Devaraja Mudaliar Street, Sivan Chetty Garden, Bangalore. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was a rift between the petitioner and her husband and as a result of which, she filed a divorce case in M.C. No. 2724/2007 on the file of the Family Court at Bangalore and she had obtained an interim order restraining S.T. Anandan from dispossessing her from the property bearing No. 28, Devaraja Mudaliar Street, Sivan Chetty Garden, Bangalore. It is pleaded in Paragraph No. 4.5 of the application that her husband with an intention to take revenge against the petitioner, he got allotted residence from the council accommodation though he was not eligible for allotment as he has his own house at Bangalore and getting rent, etc., and therefore, she made a representation as per Annexures - 14 & 15 but in vain. On the other hand, respondent No. 1 issued office memorandums at Annexures - 16 & 17 in violation of rules in force and in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, she has prayed for the reliefs as mentioned above.
The Tribunal after hearing arguments passed the impugned order at Annexure - ''D'' and quashed the impugned orders at Annexures - A16 and A17 and also directed the respondents to make payment of the arrears of HRA from the month of March 2009 to the petitioner and continue to pay HRA as per Rules. This is impugned in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the present petitioners submits that as per the Rules, the respondent herein is not entitled to claim KRA and the respondent instead of replying to the show-cause notice, she approached the CAT and the very right of the employer in initiating action for the misconduct of the employee is infringed. He further submits that CAT has no right to declare law contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the employer and prays that the impugned order of the CAT may be quashed.
A specific question was posed to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, whether it the case of the respondent that the respondent and her husband are living together?
Answer to the question is "No".
If there is any rift between husband and wife who are the employees of the NAL, the wife is entitled to live separately and under such circumstances, the employee/wife is entitled to seek HRA. The employer has not made any rule adverting to the case of the petitioner. The CAT is justified in allowing the application. We see no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result, petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, IA. No. 1/2011 for dispensation of production of Annexures - ''C1'' to ''C6'' does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed off.