Whether govt servants are entitled to get house rent allowance even though they are not staying at headquarter/place of duty?

 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

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

Whether evidence of a person can be disbelieved if he has not produced permission to leave headquarter?

Contentions urged assailing credibility of PW-2 do not merit acceptance. PW-2 in his evidence had clearly stated that he had come to Dehradun from Tehri on 7.08.1997 and was in his parents house till 3.00 pm on 10.08.1997 when he left for the hotel. PW-2 clearly explained the reason for his stay at hotel stating that distance of his father’s house from Dehradun bus stand is 4-5 kms. and as he wanted to settle the matter with the in-laws of his sister-Archana about their additional demand of dowry for Rs.5,00,000/-, he left his home to the hotel with his luggage at 3.00 o’clock perhaps to settle the matter with in-laws of Archana and in order to save time to take the bus on the night of 10.08.1997, PW-2 might have stayed in the hotel at Dehradun. In his evidence, PW-2 clearly stated that he had taken permission to be away from Tehri from 07.08.1997 to 10.08.1997 and that he took leave from 11.08.1997 for three-four days to go to Bombay in connection with his wife’s treatment in Bombay. PW-2’s evidence that he met Archana at their parental home on 09.08.1997 and that Archana informed him about the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- and cruelty meted out to her and that he proceeded to the house of the appellants to settle the dispute amicably is quite natural and inspires confidence. PW-2 acted like a loving brother and probably he did not want to give tension to his old parents and on seeing the urgency of the matter, went to the appellants’ house to convince them. By perusal of evidence of PW-2, it is seen that he remained consistent throughout his cross-examination and nothing substantial was elicited to discredit his version. Merely because PW-2 has not produced documents showing the permission granted to him to be away from the headquarters Tehri from 07.08.1997 to 10.08.1997, version of PW-2 cannot be doubted. The reasons stated by PW-2 for his stay in hotel is quite convincing and the contention assailing the credibility of PW-2 was rightly rejected by the trial court and the High Court.

Supreme Court of India

V.K.Mishra & Anr vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 28 July, 2015

Citation; AIR 2015 SC3043

Bench: T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal, R. Banumathi

Read full judgment here; click here

Print Page