R.K. Munshi vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir

2024 INSC 365 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 43 OF 2022)

R.K. MUNSHI .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th

September, 2021 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High

Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in LPA No.

38 of 2020 whereby, the learned Division Bench rejected the

Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant and affirmed the

order dated 19th December, 2019 passed by the learned Single Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

Judge in SWP No. 3440 of 2014 rejecting the writ petition filed by Deepak Singh Date: 2024.05.02 15:25:20 IST Reason:

the appellant.

1

3. Succinctly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of

the appeal are that the appellant herein was working as an

Inspector(Telecom) in Jammu and Kashmir Police, 4th Battalion.

He superannuated from services on 30th April, 2014. The

appellant received a communication from the Director Police,

Telecom regarding recovery of the outstanding rentals on account

of unauthorized drawals of House Rent Allowance(hereinafter

being referred to as ‘HRA’) by the appellant. The said action was

taken under Rule 6(h) of The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services

(House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules,

1992(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Rules of 1992’) in pursuance

of a complaint received by the authorities wherein, it was alleged

that the appellant was availing Government accommodation and

simultaneously drawing HRA. Notice was given to the appellant to

deposit a sum of Rs.3,96,814/- determined to have been drawn by

him as HRA without entitlement. By this very notice, the appellant

was given a chance to produce documents in proof to indicate that

the quarter in question, i.e., quarter No. 6-A was not under his

occupation/possession. As the appellant failed to satisfy the

authorities in this regard, the recovery notice was issued which

2 was subjected to challenge in the writ Court and the Letters Patent

Appeal albeit unsuccessfully.

4. Learned counsel Ms. Purnima Bhat, appearing on behalf of

the appellant urged that indisputably, the quarter in question had

been allotted in the name of appellant’s father who was a Retd.

Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant occasionally

shared the official accommodation allotted to his father. She urged

that the High Court glossed over the relevant clauses of Rule 6(h)

of Rules of 1992 while dismissing the writ petition as well as the

appeal filed by the appellant, inasmuch as only, one part of the

said rule was considered while ignoring the part which favourably

covers the case of the appellant. The pertinent contention raised

by the learned counsel was that had the High Court considered the

provisions contained in Rule 6(h)(iv), the recovery notice could not

have been sustained.

5. For the sake of ready reference, Rule 6(h) of Rules of 1992 is

reproduced hereinbelow: -

“6. The grant of House Rent Allowance shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a)-(g)…..

(h) A Govt employee shall not be entitled to House Rent Allowance if:

3 (i) he/she shares accommodation allotted rent free to another Govt servant.

(ii) he/she resides in accommodation allotted to his/her parents, son, daughter by the Govt;

(iii) his wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Govt whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her.

(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.

(v)….”

6. It was contended that admittedly quarter No. 6-A was allotted

to the appellant’s father, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who

retired from the post as a Gazetted Officer, and was a displaced

Kashmiri pandit. Thus, the appellant cannot be charged HRA on

account of occasional shared residence in the said quarter. She

thus, implored the Court to set aside the impugned orders and the

recovery notice.

7. Per contra, Mr. Parth Awasthi learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State vehemently and fervently opposed the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

He urged that indisputably, the appellant enjoyed residence in the

4 Government quarter allotted to his father and thus by virtue of

Rule 6(h)(i) and (ii) reproduced supra, he was not entitled to claim

HRA. He thus, submitted that the impugned recovery notice is

justified in the eyes of law.

8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material

available on record.

9. 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. Thus, reliance

placed by learned counsel for the appellant on Rule 6(h)(iv) is

misplaced as the said provision has no application to the situation

at hand. 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. By virtue of these

two clauses, the appellant being a Government employee, could

not have claimed HRA while sharing rent free accommodation

5 allotted to his father, a retired Government servant. There is no

infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference.

10. As a consequence, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of

force.

11. No order as to costs.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (B.R. GAVAI)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

May 02, 2024.

6