The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, citing a Supreme Court judgment, has ruled that House Rent Allowance (HRA) is not a matter of right.
Chennai: The tribunal made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by a 55-year-old Agriculture Fieldman, seeking to set aside the government order and to refund the HRA recovered from his monthly salary since October 2015.
M Manoharan, who works in Central Cattle Breeding Farm, Chennai prayed the tribunal to direct the government not to make any further recovery from his salary and award exemplary cost. He said he was allotted a Type-III quarters to be occupied on or before August 1, 2015, which was in a dilapidated condition. Hence, he gave a representation to rectify the defects. On October 13, the government informed him that the house is ready and he should occupy it in three days. But even then, it was in an unfit condition. “The government began to deduct the HRA with effect from October 16, 2015, which is illegal. He is a kidney patient and had undergone renal transplantation and has a right to live in a clean place with a clear atmosphere,” read the submission.
Countering this, the Union government submitted that repairs were undertaken at a cost of Rs 26,320 and the premise provides the best living condition with greenery and fresh air. HRA is allowed only if the department cannot provide quarters.
Recording the submissions, Judicial Member P Madhavan and Administrative Member T Jacob refused to accept Manoharan’s submission and said, “It can be seen that HRA is only an allowance which can be claimed if there are no quarters available at the place of work. It cannot be claimed as a monetary benefit. There are no reliable materials to show that the premise is unsafe and dangerous for occupation.”
M Manoharan, who works in Central Cattle Breeding Farm, Chennai prayed the tribunal to direct the government not to make any further recovery from his salary and award exemplary cost. He said he was allotted a Type-III quarters to be occupied on or before August 1, 2015, which was in a dilapidated condition. Hence, he gave a representation to rectify the defects. On October 13, the government informed him that the house is ready and he should occupy it in three days. But even then, it was in an unfit condition. “The government began to deduct the HRA with effect from October 16, 2015, which is illegal. He is a kidney patient and had undergone renal transplantation and has a right to live in a clean place with a clear atmosphere,” read the submission.
Countering this, the Union government submitted that repairs were undertaken at a cost of Rs 26,320 and the premise provides the best living condition with greenery and fresh air. HRA is allowed only if the department cannot provide quarters.
Recording the submissions, Judicial Member P Madhavan and Administrative Member T Jacob refused to accept Manoharan’s submission and said, “It can be seen that HRA is only an allowance which can be claimed if there are no quarters available at the place of work. It cannot be claimed as a monetary benefit. There are no reliable materials to show that the premise is unsafe and dangerous for occupation.”