HRA Rules Applicable To All Central Govt Institutions/ PSUs & Autonomous Bodies Including IGNOU: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that Central Government Institutions/ PSUs and Autonomous Bodies other than those explicitly mentioned under the HRA General Rules and Orders are also covered under the Rules.

The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Talwant Singh and Rajiv Shakhdher in a case where a contention was raised that Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) is neither the department of the Central Government nor State Government, nor an autonomous body/ undertaking, nor a semi-government organization for the purposes of HRA Rules.

Thus, the petitioner, a government employee challenging an order of its employer for recovery of HRA on the ground that his wife was already receiving HRA from IGNOU and he is thus barred under Rule 5(c)(iii).

Rule 5(c)(iii) stipulates:

A Government servant shall not be entitled to House Rent Allowance, if his wife/her husband has been allotted accommodation at the same station by the Central Government, State Government, an Autonomous Public Undertaking or semi-Government Organization such as Municipality, Port Trust, etc., whether he/she resides in that accommodation or he/she resides separately in accommodation rented by him/her.

As per the employer, the Petitioner was ineligible for claiming HRA, since his wife was in receipt of HRA.

The Court held that IGNOU is a Central Government autonomous body under the administrative control of Ministry of Human Resource Development and it is funded through budgetary support and being a Central Government Autonomous Body, it is covered under para 5 (c) (iii) of the conditions for granting HRA.

Significantly, the Petitioner had relied on a judgment of the CAT in Dr. Vrinda V. Khole vs. Indian Council of Medical Research, whereby it was held that where husband of the petitioner was appointed Vice Chancellor of Mumbai University, the petitioner was still entitled to HRA.

The Court also noted that in this case, the Petitioner had not claimed HRA for the period he was residing with his wife and it was only when he moved to a separate rented accommodation, did he claim the HRA.

Drawing an adverse inference of the same, the Bench observed,

"it is believed that the accommodation allotted to the wife of the petitioner is not covered under Rule 5 (c)(iii), and even if the petitioner resides with his wife, he was still entitled to HRA, then, why he had not claimed the HRA for the period during which he was residing with his wife from July, 2003 to April, 2007 in the official accommodation allotted to her. The act of the petitioner of not claiming the HRA during the said period clearly establishes that he was well aware that if he stays in the accommodation allotted by IGNOU to his wife, he could not have claimed HRA."

Finally, the Court observed that this is not a case where the petitioner can claim that he was an innocent victim of the circumstances, rather it is a case where the petitioner himself has created the circumstances which led his employer to believe that he was entitled to claim HRA and later on when it was realized that the petitioner was not entitled to claim the same, the employer had no other option but to seek guidance from the Department of Expenditure and as per the advice tendered by Department of Expenditure, further payment of HRA was disallowed w.e.f. April, 2017 and earlier amount was ordered to be recovered.

"The order passed by the department is neither harsh nor arbitrary and it does not trump the employer‟s right to recover the money which was not paid under some misconception rather on the basis of an active conduct of the petitioner of writing letter dated 15.05.2007 intentionally to create a situation because of which the department was forced to release HRA to him for the period in question," it held while dismissing the petition.

Case Title: Jayabrata Bose v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 146