HRA – not a right to an employee
WBXPRESS › Forums › Pay & Allowances › HRA – not a right to an employee
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 1, 2012 at 3:42 am #68022unknownParticipant
@ 10moy,
I think the Inspector of Police was not residing at head quarter, so necessary measures were taken by the higher authority as per “Obligation to stay at Head Quarter (WBSR – I, Rule 29A)”.November 2, 2012 at 12:00 pm #75101unknownParticipantDr. Majumder,
Would you please provide the related Government Order in support of your claim. I like to recall a case of my department where an Inspector of Police forcebly allotted a Government accommodation without his willingness by the then ADDL DIRECTOR GENL OF POLICE, TELECOM. The ocficer denied to accept the same due to some major family problem. Unfortunately the officer placed under order of suspension. Even those hard days that Inspector of Police used to get the HRA as part of his SA.November 2, 2012 at 3:21 pm #75105unknownParticipantThat Inspector of Police was a resident of his own dwelling house which is 22 Km away from HQ. Due to the aggrieves of the ADG WB Telecom he had been allotted the Government Accommodation and there was no such obligation to stay at Headquarters.
November 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm #75122unknownParticipantFriends,
First, it was the opinion of the Delhi High Court that HRA is not a right.
Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court said in a judgement, “HRA is not a part of pay but is a compensatory allowance in lieu of accommodation… and is not to be used as a source of profit. The moment the amenity is provided or offered, the employees should cease to be in receipt of the compensation which is given for want of it,” …….”Whenever accommodation is offered to the employees, the employees have either to accept it or to forfeit the HRA and the management cannot be saddled with double liability viz to construct and maintain the quarters as well as to pay the HRA,”
See the link:
HRA not a right but an allowance: HC – Indian Express
Justice B P Dharmadhikari and Justice A P Bhangale of the Hon’ble Mumbai H.C. said, “HRA is not a matter of right, it is a compensatory allowance given by an employer towards the rental accommodation expenses when the government is unable to provide suitable accommodation to its employee,…………. The employee, if he resides in his own property, may not be entitled to claim the HRA, because it is paid to central government employees to compensate them partly for the especially higher rents which they have to pay for hired or rented residential accommodation in big cities, but not as a source of profit “
See the link:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/HRA-not-a-right-merely-a-compensation-HC/articleshow/10148867.cms
Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011
Secondly, if an employee applies for Govt. accommodation and, after allotment of the same he refuses it because of some reasons (commonly, remoteness/ poor facilities, amenities etc.) his HRA may be discontinued. I don’t know about State Govt. G.O., but there is clear instructions for Central Govt. employees.
Once Central Govt. issued strictures to its employees working in offices located in Metros (Kolkata, Delhi, Chennai, Mumbai) to stop payment of HRA as many of the Central Govt. quarters were lying vacant after HRA was increased to 30% by the 5th CPC. Many employees who were residing in govt. quarters in Metro Cities before revision of pay & allowances vacated those accommodations after increase of HRA from 15% to 30% and, started occupying the rented houses because of financial gain.
I shall certainly try to provide G.O. if I manage to get it. I am outstation now.
With regards.November 3, 2012 at 4:00 pm #75132unknownParticipantDear 10moy da, The following condition is noted in WBS(ROPA), 2009:
When a Government accommodation being in a habitable condition in all respect with appropriate supply of water, power and toilet arrangements for individual families and such a Government accommodation is earmarked for holder of a particular post, the holder will not be entitled to house rent allowance for living elsewhere.November 7, 2012 at 7:02 am #75171unknownParticipantBoth husband and wife are put to hardship on HRA issue. See the HRA incident in the following thread:
November 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm #75173unknownParticipantOh no!! Its very painful. Are we living in a democratic country? Thanks Mr. Polo for sharing the link.
November 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm #75176unknownParticipantOh my God,
The concern person and myself is from thd same department – Telecommunication, West Bengal, Under Home (Police) Department. I am not aware of the fact but it was a matter of discussion that Mr Enayet Ali was demoted due to drawal of HRA whereas he was staying at the Govt Quarter of her wife at Uluberia.
During my suspension period a general transfer order was passed by the authority. On that order being a suspended I had ordered to transfer at Bidhannagar Telecom Station under Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate, on the same order Mr Enayet Ali was also posted in the same place. At that order I found that Mr Aliregain his previous Post. Later I came to know that with the help of legal order his order of demotion has been revocked.November 7, 2012 at 5:09 pm #75175unknownParticipantSPIRIT OF HRA RULE
As regards admissibility of HRA to the Central Govt. employees the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute vs.. M Purushottaman case (SC 2541) held that :- “It must be remembered in this connection that the Government or the organisation of the kind of the appellant spends huge public funds for constructing quarters for their employees both for the convenience of the management as well as of the employees. The investment thus made in constructing and maintaining the quarters will be a waste if they are to lie unoccupied. The HRA is not a matter of right. It is in lieu of the accommodation not made available to the employees. This being the case, it follows that whenever the accommodation is offered the employees have either to accept it or to forfeit the HRA. The management cannot be saddled with double liability, viz., to construct and maintain the quarters as well as to pay the HRA. This is the rationale of the provisions …………………….. HRA shall not be admissible to those who occupy accommodation provided for them as well as to those to whom accommodation has been offered but who have refused it.”
The Apex Court further observed: “The HRA would be covered by the definition of Compensatory Allowance. It is compensation in lieu of accommodations. This definition itself further makes it clear that compensatory allowance is not to be used as a source of profit. It is given only to compensate for the amenities which are not available or provided to the employee. The moment, therefore, the amenities are produced or offered, the employee should cease to be in receipt of the compensation which is given for want of it….”
HRA is a compensatory allowance as defined under Fundamental Rule 44, which stipulates:
“F.R. 44. Compensatory allowance. Subject to the general rule that the amount of compensatory allowance should be so regulated that the allowance is not on the whole a source of profit to the recipient, the Central Government may grant such allowances to any Government servant under its control and may make rules prescribing their amounts and the conditions under which they may be drawn.”
Is there any such restriction for State Govt. employees?November 8, 2012 at 3:54 am #75182unknownParticipant………Are we living in a democratic country? …..
Neither Mr. Ali nor his wife being the State Govt. employees initially disclosed to their respective offices the employment & HRA entitlement of other spouse. Mrs. Ahmed did not allow the office to assess the HRA admissibility of her husband by suppressing the fact. On the other hand Mr. Ali refused to submit declaration in violation of HRA rules. Declaration is a must-do exercise in State Govt. services. Moreover, he continued to draw HRA despite his sharing Govt. accommodation with his wife. Double offence! Acts of both spouses were in contravention of the existing HRA rules.
However, I personally think that the consequence faced by Mrs. Ahmed is too rigorous as she did not get pay for last 8 years! -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.