Whether government servant who are not residing at place of duty are entitled to House rent allowance?

 In that view of the matter, we hold and declare
that, as long as, the said Government Resolution is intact
and the conditions to stay at the place of duty is dispensed
with, in favour of the employees working in the rural areas
under the establishment of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in
view of the clause 4 of the said Government Resolution the
said   protection   cannot   be   taken   away   by   the   impugned
circulars and communications. In that view of the matter,
the   members   of   the   petitioner   association   and   all   other
similarly   situated   employees   covered   by   aforementioned
Government   Resolution   dated   5th  February,   1990,
throughout the State of Maharashtra, who are working in
rural areas are entitled for house rent even though they are

not staying at headquarter/place of duty. Therefore, that
part   of   the   circular   dated   5th  July,   2008   and   the
communication   dated   14th  March,   2014   and   6th  March,
2014, i.e.   employees who are not residing at the place of
headquarter,   their   house   rent   should   be   stopped,   stand
quashed   and   set   aside.   The   employees   in   rural   areas
working under the control and supervision of Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5 throughout the State of Maharashtra, covered by
clause 4 of the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 5th
February, 1990, who are entitled for house rent, their house
rent cannot be stopped on the ground that, they are not
residing at headquarters relying upon impugned circulars
and   communications. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5822 OF 2014
Maharashtra Rajya Prathamik 
Shikshak Sangh, Jalgaon 

­V
The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM :     S.S. SHINDE & 
     A. M. BADAR, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 19th October, 2015

Print Page

Supreme Court: Suspended employee should not be denied subsistence allowance if he is not residing at the headquarters

 From the aforesaid authority it is clear as day that the presence at the headquarters was not a requirement under the Rule. In the case at hand, there is no rule that provides that the suspended employee should remain at the headquarters to be entitled to get subsistence allowance. That apart, as is evident, the Respondent herein had clearly stated about his financial condition and his inability to remain at the headquarters. It is not the case of the functionaries of the State that he was asked to furnish a certificate and he did not furnish. The whole case rests on the fact that as the Respondent-employee did not remain at the headquarters no subsistence allowance was paid. We have noted the aforesaid authorities as doctrince of prejudice has been associated with non-payment of subsistence allowance. We need not dwell on the concept of absolute position in law. We are only inclined to state that it would depend upon the stipulations made in the rules and the facts of the case. We may hasten to clarify that rules made by the Competent Authority are always subject to their constitutional validity. As far as the present case is concerned the facts do clearly reveal that the salary that was due to the Respondent was not paid for unfathomable reason. The subsistence allowance was not paid on the singular ground that he had not stayed at the headquarters despite a stipulation in the order of suspension. The Respondent had submitted number of representations with regard to his penurious condition to stay at the headquarters and participate in the disciplinary proceedings. There is nothing in the Rules which would require for a suspended employee to remain at the headquarters. Thus, in the present case, even if the doctrince prejudice is applied, it is quite obvious that the Respondent herein was absolutely handicapped to participate in the departmental proceedings and hence, prejudice was caused. In this backdrop, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as far as the quashing of order of punishment is concerned. 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6265 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35698 of 2011)

Decided On: 26.07.2013

Appellants: State of Bihar and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Arbind

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Anil R. Dave and Dipak Misra, JJ.1

Citation; AIR 2013 SC 3329

Print Page