{"id":52840,"date":"2006-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006"},"modified":"2015-01-14T15:53:30","modified_gmt":"2015-01-14T10:23:30","slug":"the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 21\/04\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA       \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR         \n\nW.P. No.38937 of 2005  \n to\n W.P. No.38941 of 2005 \n and\n W.P. No.39594 of 2005 \n to\n W.P. No.39599 of 2005 \n and\n W.P. No.36183 of 2065 \n and\n W.P. No.40021 of 2005 \n and\n W.P. No.9280 of 2006 \n and\n W.P. No.62 of 2006 \n and\n W.P.M.P. No.41711 of 2005  \n to\n W.P.M.P. No.41715 of 2005  \n and\n W.P.M.P. No.42441 of 2005  \n to\n W.P.M.P. No.42446 of 2005  \n and\n W.P.M.P. No.39028 of 2005  \n and\n W.P.M.P. No.42917 of 2005  \n and\n W.P.M.P. No.10269 of 2006  \n and\n W.P.M.P. No.56 of 2006 \n\nThe Principal,\nKendriya Vidyala Sangathan, \nMeenambakkam,    \nChennai 600 027.              .. Petitioner in\n                                 W.P.No.38937 of 2005\n-Vs-\n\n1. D.Sarala\n2. The Registrar,\n   Central Administrative\n   Tribunal,\n   Chennai.                    .. Respondents in<\/pre>\n
                                  W.P.No.38937 of 2005<\/p>\n
        Writ Petition  No.38937  of  2005  filed  under  Article  226  of  the
\nConstitution  of  India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling
\nfor the records of the Central Administrative Tribunal  culminating  with  its
\norder dated 8.3.2005 passed in O.A.NO.962 of 2004 and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
!For petitioner in
\n W.P.No.38937 of 2005:  Mr.M.Vaidyanathan  <\/p>\n
^For respondents in
\n W.P.No.38937 of 2005:  Mr.V.Girish Kumar for R1
\n                        R2 Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER      <\/p>\n
                (The Order of the Court was made by R.Sudhakar,J.)<\/p>\n
        Even   though   the  matters  are  listed  for  hearing  miscellaneous
\npetitions, on consent of the learned counsel appearing  for  both  sides,  the
\nwrit petitions themselves are heard on merits.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  present  batch of writ petitions have been filed by Kendriya
\nVidyalaya Sangathan (in short, ‘KVS’).\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The petitioner-KVS is an  autonomous  body  registered  under  the
\nSocieties  Registration  Act  and  financed by the Government of India through
\nMinistry of Human Resource Development.  The staff of Kendriya  Vidyalaya  are
\ngoverned  by  the  Rules  framed  by  the  Board  of Governors in terms of the
\npolicies laid down by the Government of India.  In 1986, sanction was accorded
\nfor construction of staff quarters for teaching staff of  Kendriya  Vidyalaya,
\nMeenambakkam in  Tamil  Nadu  within  the  premises  of  the  Vidyalaya.   The
\nconstruction of the building was completed in September  1992  at  a  cost  of
\nRs.33.65 lakhs.  In all, 21 quarters were constructed and classified as Type-I
\n(A), Type-II  (B),  TypeIII (C) and Type-IV(D).  In terms of Rule 8 of the KVS
\n(Allotment of Residence) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’),
\nthe abovesaid quarters are allotted to the  teachers  as  per  the  emoluments
\nreceived by  them.    It  appears  that  in  January, 1995, due to acute water
\nshortage, all the quarters were vacated by the  occupants  and  thereby  heavy
\nmonetary  loss  was caused to the KVS and pursuant to audit objection, the KVS
\n(Allotment of Residence) Rules, 1998 came into force.    All  the  staff  were
\nbriefed  about the audit objection and the willingness of the staff was called
\nfor to accept the allotment.  Since none of the staff members, the  contesting
\nrespondents in all these writ petitions offered to take up the staff quarters,
\nseveral  circulars were issued to the staff members, in particular, a circular
\ndated 19.1.2 004 was issued to the staff to apply for accommodation of  Type-B
\nquarters.   Subsequently,  a  priority  list  dated  1.1.2004  for allotment
\ncategorywise for Type ‘B’ and Type ‘C’ quarters, was circulated on 20 .2.2004.
\nThe above circulars were issued under the Rules.  Inspite  of  such  circular,
\nsince  no staff member came forward to occupy the premises, the petitioner-KVS
\nwas left with no other option except to allot the quarters as per the priority
\nlist.  However, in view of the refusal of the staff  to  occupy  the  quarters
\nallotted  to  the  contesting respondents, the House Rent Allowance (in short,
\n‘HRA’) for the period from the date of allotment to the  date  when  the  last
\nunit was  occupied,  was  disallowed.    This was done based on Rule 11 of the
\nRules.  The allotment of the quarters was done in terms  of  Rule  10  of  the
\nRules by  the  Allotment  Committee.    There  was  no  compulsion  by the KVS
\nauthorities whatsoever.  Since the staff members did not co-operate  with  the
\nKVS,  the KVS had to invoke Rule 8 read with Rule 6 and Rule 3(9) of the Rules
\nfor allotment of quarters.  This was done by the Executive Committee which  is
\na sub-committee  of  the  Vidyalaya  Management  Committee.    The  contesting
\nrespondents, namely the staff members, aggrieved  by  the  deduction  of  HRA,
\nfiled Original Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  claim  of  the  staff  members is that they individually own
\nhouses and reside within 20 kms.  from the school.  They are not  eligible  to
\nget accommodation  by allotment of quarters as they have their own house.  The
\nKVS without following the Rules,  had  allotted  the  quarters  to  the  staff
\nmembers  and  they  have objected to the allotment on the ground that they are
\nnot entitled to such allotment under the Rules and  therefore,  requested  for
\ncancellation of  the allotment of quarters.  It was contended by them that the
\ndisallowance of HRA from the date of allotment of quarters was contrary to the
\nRules and the deduction of HRA from their pay based on the  priority  list  by
\ncommon circular  dated 28.6.2004, was erroneous.  It is contended by the staff
\nmembers that the allotment should be made  strictly  in  accordance  with  the
\nRules  and  the  KVS authorities cannot suo motu allot the quarters and compel
\nthe staff members to occupy the same.  It  is  also  contended  by  the  staff
\nmembers  that  in  terms  of  Rule  10 of the Rules, the Committee should have
\nshort-listed the staff members who are ineligible to get accommodation as  per
\nRule 4(1)  of  the  Rules.  It was also contended by the staff members that in
\nthe case of one V.K.Manoharan, who was occupying the  quarters  from  1993  to
\n1996, was forcibly evicted by the KVS authorities under Rule 4(3) of the Rules
\non the  ground  that  he  purchased  his  own house.  On the same analogy, the
\nsubsequent  allotment  made  is  contrary   to   the   rules   and   therefore
\nunsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Relying  upon  the  various provisions of the Rules, the Tribunal
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “26.  Here I have to see whether the action  of  the  respondents  for
\ndenying HRA  is  proper.    Admittedly,  as  per rules, the applicants are not
\neligible for allotment of quarters.  When the applicants  are  not  fulfilling
\nthe benefit  of  residing  in  quarters  they  are eligible for HRA.  When the
\nrespondent has forcibly allotted the quarters the applicants have refused  the
\nallotment.   Immediately  without  hearing  the applicants, the respondent has
\nissued a circular for recovery of the HRA paid to the applicants from the  pay
\nbill June, 2004 which is capricious and against law.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   The  said  rules  is  applicable  to  the  allottees made by the
\nAllotment Committee after calling applications for allotment of quarters.  The
\nsaid rule is not applicable to the present case since there was  no  procedure
\nfollowed by  the  respondents for calling of applications.  The applicants did
\nnot submit their  applications  for  allotment.    Refusal  of  occupying  the
\nquarters  only on the basis of the allotment made by the respondents suo motu,
\nhence the said rule 11 is not applicable to the facts of this case.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  I carefully considered the contentions from the either  side  and
\nthe respondent  has  not  justified in denying HRA.  The impugned order is not
\nsustainable in the eye of law since there was no notice prior to  passing  the
\norders.   Since  the  rules for allotment are not followed while allotting the
\nquarters the denial of HRA is also not proper.  I consider the  orders  passed
\nby  this  Tribunal  in  OA.981 of 2000 and batch is applicable to the facts of
\nthis case.  Hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  For the foregoing reasons and the judgment referred above and  as
\nper  provisions  of allotment rules, KVS (Allotment of Residence) Rules, 1998,
\nthe impugned action of the respondents is illegal.  I accepted the  contention
\ntaken  by  the  applicants  and  the  respondents have not justified in taking
\naction for denial of HRA.  While admitting  the  case  the  interim  order  of
\nrecovery was granted.  The interim order is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  The OAs.  are allowed.  No order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
        It  is  against  this order of the Tribunal that the KVS has filed the present
\nwrit petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Before we go into the merits of the claims made by either parties,
\nit will be useful to refer to the following Rules of the KVS  (  Allotment  of
\nResidence) Rules:\n<\/p>\n
“Rule 3.  Definitions:\n<\/p>\n
        In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires-\n<\/p>\n
        (9)  ‘Priority  Date’ of an officer in relation to a type of residence
\nto which he is eligible under Rule 6 of these Rules, means the  earliest  date
\nfrom  which  he  has  been  continuously  drawing  emoluments  relevant  to  a
\nparticular type or a higher type  in  a  post  under  the  Kendriya  Vidyalaya
\nSangathan or the  Central  Govt.  or State Govt.  or on foreign service except
\nfor periods of leave.\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that where the priority date of two or more officers  is  the
\nsame,  seniority among them shall be determined by the emoluments, the officer
\nin receipt of higher emoluments taking precedence over the officer in  receipt
\nof lower emoluments; where the emoluments are equal, by the length of service;
\nand where both the emoluments and length of service are equal, on the basis of
\nthe  scale  of pay of the officer, the officer working in a post having higher
\nscale of pay taking precedence over the officer in receipt of lower  scale  of
\npay.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 4:  Ineligibility of Employees owning House(s).\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  No  employee  of the Sangathan shall be eligible for allotment of
\nresidence if either he or any member of his family owns a house within 15 Kms.
\n(20 Kms.  for Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay and Chennai) from place of his posting.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) of this rule, the
\nAllotting Authority may allot or reallot a residence to any employee if –\n<\/p>\n
        (a) The house owned by him, his wife, any dependent child  or  by  his
\nfather\/mother  or  any  other dependent relation has been requisitioned by the
\nGovernment\/Local authority; or<\/p>\n
        (b) It is proved to the satisfaction of the Allotting  Authority  that
\nsuch house has been given out on lease:\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  Before  the  posting  of  the employee to the Vidyalaya, Regional
\nOffice(s) and Headquarters office of the Sangathan; and<\/p>\n
        (ii) The Allotting Authority is satisfied that it is not possible  for
\nthe lessor, for reasons beyond his control, to obtain vacant possession of the
\nhouse;\n<\/p>\n
        Provided  that  if  at  any time it appears to the Allotting Authority
\nthat no effort has been made to obtain vacant  possession  of  the  house,  it
\nshall  be  open to the Allotting Authority to cancel the allotment and require
\nthe allottee to vacate the residence forthwith and to recover the  damages  at
\nthe  rates  prescribed by Government of India or the Sangathan as damages from
\nthe date of such cancellation till the residence is vacated.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) When after a residence has been allotted to an employee, he or any
\nmember of his family becomes owner of a house within the limits  mentioned  in
\nclause  (1) of this rule, such employee shall notify the fact to the allotting
\nauthority and shall vacate the residence allotted  to  him  by  the  Sangathan
\nunder  these  rules  within  a  period of one month from the date the house is
\nprovided with electricity connection.\n<\/p>\n
        (4) The provisions of this rule will not apply where sufficient number
\nof residences are available for allotment to all the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 7:  Application for allotment:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Applications for allotment  shall  be  invited  by  the  Allotting
\nAuthority  in such form and manner and before such date as may be specified by
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) An employee joining duty on transfer or on first  appointment  may
\nsubmit  his  application  to  the  allotting  authority  within a month of his
\njoining duty.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) Application received under clause (2) above on or before the 20 th
\nday of a calendar month  shall  alone  be  considered  for  allotment  in  the
\nsucceeding month.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 8:  Basis of allotment:\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  Save  as  otherwise  provided in these Rules, a residence falling
\nvacant will be allotted preferably  to  an  applicant  desiring  a  change  of
\naccommodation  in  that  type,  and  if  not  required for that purpose, to an
\napplicant without accommodation in that type having the earliest priority date
\nfor that type of residence.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) Allotment of the residences earmarked for a specific  employee  or
\nclasses  of  employees  shall  be made only to that specific employee of those
\nclasses of employees in whose favour the residence has been earmarked.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) Employees joining the Sangathan  on  deputation  may  be  allotted
\nresidence of the eligible category or one category below on priority.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)  Separate  seniority  list  will  be prepared showing the order in
\nwhich the allotment is to be made, for each type of residence.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 9:  Earmarking of residence:\n<\/p>\n
        Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,  any  accommodation
\nmay be earmarked for allotment to such officer or officers of the Sangathan as
\nmay be specified by the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 10:  Allotment Committee:\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  All  applications  for  allotment  shall  be  considered  by  the
\nAllotment  Committee  constituted  separately  for  each  Kendriya  Vidyalaya,
\nRegional  Office,  the  Headquarters  office or any other establishment of the
\nSangathan consisting of such members as may be prescribed by the KVS Hqrs.\n<\/p>\n
        (2) The Committee shall draw up a  list  of  applicants  eligible  for
\nallotment in the order in which residence may be allotted during the allotment
\nyear.  The  list  shall  remain  valid  for  one  year.   A fresh list will be
\nprepared and approved by the Allotment Committee  at  the  beginning  of  each
\nallotment year.\n<\/p>\n
        Note:-  The  Allotment Committee may allot an appropriate place in the
\nlist of the employees joining during the middle of  the  year  and  apply  for
\nresidence as mentioned in Rule 7.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)  A  residence  falling  vacant  will  be allotted by the allotting
\nauthority strictly in accordance with these rules after  taking  into  account
\nthe  list  prepared  by the allotment committee under clause (2) of this rule.
\nIn the event of difference of opinion  between  the  allotting  authority  and
\nallotment  committee, the matter will be referred to the authority immediately
\nhigher than the allotting authority whose decision  in  the  matter  shall  be
\nfinal.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)  A  letter  of  allotment  shall  be  issued in duplicate to every
\nemployee to whom a residence is allotted and he shall be  required  to  convey
\nhis  acceptance  or  otherwise  in  writing (on one copy of the letter) of the
\nterms of the allotment stipulated therein  before  actual  possession  of  the
\nresidence is made over to him.\n<\/p>\n
        (5) If an employee to whom a residence is allotted does not accept the
\nallotment  or take possession of the residence within a period not exceeding 8
\ncontinuous days, from the date of receipt of  the  letter  of  allotment,  the
\nallotment  will  be  treated as cancelled and he\/she shall not be eligible for
\nanother allotment for a period of one year from  the  date  of  the  allotment
\nletter.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 11:    Non-acceptance  of  Allotment  or  offer  or failure to occupy the
\nallotted residence after acceptance:\n<\/p>\n
        If any employee fails to accept the allotment of  a  residence  within
\nfive  days  or  fails  to  take  possession of that residence after acceptance
\nwithin eight days from the date of the receipt of the letter of the allotment,
\nhe\/she shall not be eligible for another allotment letter.  Such  an  employee
\nwill also not be eligible to the drawal of HRA for the period during which the
\nallotted residence remains vacant or surplus.”\n<\/p>\n
        7.   The  main  contention  of  the petitioners\/KVS in their challenge
\nagainst the order of the Tribunal is that Rule 4(1) of the Rules will  not  be
\napplicable in the present case.  On the contrary, allotment of quarters was as
\nper Rule  4(4) of the Rules.  Further, the petitioners had prepared a priority
\nlist for allotment of quarters and the staff members were allotted only as per
\nthe priority list.  Since the staff members refused to  accept  the  quarters,
\nthey  were  rightly  disentitled  to  HRA, which is not part of the pay and it
\ncannot be claimed as a matter of right.  When the quarters are allotted to the
\nstaff members by the petitioners, they cannot refuse to  take  such  allotment
\nand also  claim  the  HRA.    The  conduct of the staff members in refusing to
\noccupy the quarters and claim HRA, will amount to imposing unwanted  liability
\non the   petitioners.     Further,  the  Tribunal  has  failed  to  take  into
\nconsideration the ratio of  the  judgment  reported  in  AIR  1994  SC  254  1
\n(Director, C.P.Crops  Reserach  Institute  vs.   M.Purushothaman),<\/a> which would
\napply squarely to the present case and the reliance of the  earlier  order  of
\nthe  Tribunal  in  O.A.No.981  of 2000 and batch, dated 20.7.2001, was totally
\nmisconceived and it will not apply to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Learned counsel for  the  KVS  would  earnestly  submit  that  the
\nTribunal has overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994
\nSC 2541  cited  above.    It  was  submitted  that the contentions made by the
\npresent contesting respondents, namely the staff members, were  considered  by
\nthe Apex  Court  and  negatived in similar circumstances.  In such view of the
\nmatter, it was submitted that there is no scope for any  further  adjudication
\non the claim of the contesting respondents with regard to their claim for HRA.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  the  above  circumstances,  it will be useful to refer to the
\nobservations of the judgment of the Apex Court in the said  decision  reported
\nin AIR 1994 SC 2541.  The Tribunal in that case held that the employees cannot
\nbe  compelled to occupy official quarters and hence on their refusal to occupy
\nthe same, they cannot be denied the benefit of HRA.   The  Tribunal  gave  two
\nreasons  and  the  first  reason was that under the relevant provisions, it is
\nonly those employees who  had  applied  for  official  accommodation  and  who
\nrefused  to  occupy the same, are liable to forfeit the benefit of HRA and not
\nothers.  The second reason given by the Tribunal in that case was that the HRA
\nis a part of wages and no deduction from the  wages  can  be  made  merely  on
\naccount of the refusal to accept the accommodation.  Paragraphs 5 to 10 of the
\njudgment of the Supreme Court in that case (AIR 1994 SC 2541) read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “5.   It  is  clear  from  the  aforesaid provisions that paragraphs 4\n<\/p>\n
(a)(i)  and  (ii)  lay  down  the  procedure  for   making   application   for
\naccommodation.   Paragraph  4(b)(i)  lays  down the consequences on refusal to
\naccept the accommodation when offered.  There  is  no  doubt  that  paragraphs
\n4(a)(i)  and  (ii)  state  that  an  application  has  to  be  made  to secure
\naccommodation.   However,  that  does  not  mean  that   Government   or   the
\norganisation  such  as the appellant-organisation to which the said provisions
\napply cannot on their own offer accommodation to the  employees.    Hence  the
\nreason  given by the Tribunal that it is only if the employee applies for such
\naccommodation and he refuses to accept the same when offered that he would  be
\ndisentitled to  the  HRA,  is  not  correct.    It  must be remembered in this
\nconnection that the  Government  or  the  organisation  of  the  kind  of  the
\nappellant  spends  huge  public  funds  for  constructing  quarters  for their
\nemployees both for the convenience  of  the  management  as  well  as  of  the
\nemployees.   The  investment  thus  made  in  constructing and maintaining the
\nquarters will be a waste if they are to lie unoccupied.   The  HRA  is  not  a
\nmatter of right.  It is in lieu of the accommodation not made available to the
\nemployees.  This being the case, it follows that whenever the accommodation is
\noffered the  employees  have  either  to  accept  it  or forfeit the HRA.  The
\nmanagement cannot be saddled with double liability, viz.    to  construct  and
\nmaintain the quarters as well as to pay the HRA.  This is the rationale of the
\nprovisions of paragraph 4 of the said Government Office Memorandum.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   It  is for this reason again that paragraph 4(b)(i) provides that
\nthe HRA shall not be admissible to those who occupy accommodation provided for
\nthem as well as to those to whom accommodation has been offered but  who  have
\nrefused to  accept it.  The provisions of paragraph 4(b)(i) are independent of
\nthe provisions of paragraph 4(a)(i) and (ii).  Whereas paragraph  4(a)(i)  and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  speak  of  procedure  to be followed by the employees who are in need of
\naccommodation, paragraph 4(v)(i) provides for the forfeiture of the  HRA  even
\nwhen  the  accommodation has been offered on its own by the management whether
\nthe application for the same has been made or not.  There  is  no  distinction
\nmade  in  this provision between those who have applied and those who have not
\napplied for accommodation.  Even otherwise,  we  are  of  the  view  that  the
\ndistinction  sought  to  be  made  by  the  Tribunal  is  on  the  face of it,
\nirrational, particularly taking into  consideration  the  resources  spent  on
\nconstructing the quarters.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  We are also afraid that the Tribunal is not right in including the
\nHRA in  the  definition  of  wages.    The  Fundamental Rule 9(21)(a) which is
\napplicable to the respondents-employees defines “pay” as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “9(21)(a) Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a  Government  servant
\nas–\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  the  pay,  other than special pay granted in view of his personal
\nqualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively
\nor in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled  by  reason  of  his
\nposition in a cadre; and<\/p>\n
        (ii) overseas pay, special pay and personal pay; and<\/p>\n
        (iii)  any  other  emoluments which may be specially classed as pay by
\nthe President.”\n<\/p>\n
        8.  It is obvious from this definition that HRA is not part of  “pay”.
\nFurther, Fundamental Rule 44 defines “Compensatory Allowance” as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “F.R.  44.   Compensatory allowance  Subject to the general rule that
\nthe amount of compensatory allowance should be so regulated that the allowance
\nis not on the  whole  a  source  of  profit  to  the  recipient,  the  Central
\nGovernment  may  grant  such  allowances  to  any Government servant under its
\ncontrol and may make rules prescribing their amounts and the conditions  under
\nwhich they may be drawn.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  HRA  would  be  covered  by  the  definition of Compensatory
\nAllowance.  It is compensation in lieu of  accommodations.    This  definition
\nitself further makes it clear that compensatory allowance is not to be used as
\na source  of  profit.   It is given only to compensate for the amenities which
\nare not available or provided to the employee.   The  moment,  therefore,  the
\namenities  are provided or offered, the employee should cease to be in receipt
\nof the compensation which is given for want of it.  We wish the  Tribunal  had
\nperused  the  definition  of  “pay”  and “compensatory allowance” given in the
\nFundamental Rules before pronouncing that the HRA is a part of  the  wages  or
\npay and, therefore, cannot be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   For  both  these reasons, therefore, we are unable to accept the
\nconclusion of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Shri  Ranjit  Kumar,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
\nappellantorganisation  pointed  out  a letter dated 13-8-1986 addressed by the
\nUnder Secretary  of  the  Indian  Council  of  Agricultural  Research  to  the
\nappellant  wherein  it  is stated that the matter was examined and it was held
\nthat the HRA should be  denied  to  the  employee  who  refuses  to  take  the
\nallotment  made  or when offered to him till such time the quarter in question
\nlies vacant for want of any other taker.  This would mean that the  HRA  would
\nbe  denied  to  the  employee  only  for  the  period  the quarter lies vacant
\nconsequent upon his refusal.  While, therefore,  setting  aside  the  impugned
\norder  and allowing the appeal, we direct the appellant-organisation to deduct
\nthe HRA from the salary of the respondent-employees only for  the  period  the
\nquarters which  were  offered to the employees remained vacant.  The appeal is
\nallowed accordingly with no order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In the present case also, it is not the case of the staff members
\nopting for allotment.  On the contrary, sufficient quarters are available  for
\nallotment  and  the  petitioners-KVS allotted the quarters as per the priority
\nlist.  For reasons best known to each one of the staff members,  they  refused
\nto  take the accommodation and therefore, it has to be accepted that they have
\nrefused to take the offer and consequently, they will be  disentitled  to  the
\nHRA.   The  Apex  Court  in  no  uncertain  terms  has  held that whenever the
\naccommodation is offered to employees, they have to accept or forfeit the HRA.
\nTherefore, in the light of the very clear pronouncement of the Apex Court,  we
\nhave no hesitation to accept the stand of the petitioners-KVS.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   The  Tribunal in the present case, while extracting the relevant
\nportion of  the  judgment  of  the  Apex  Court,  has  steered  clear  of  the
\nobservations of  the  Apex  Court  on  a specious plea of discrimination.  The
\nTribunal has proceeded to grant the relief to the staff members on the  ground
\nthat  in  O.A.No.981  of  2000,  dated 20.7.2000, the Tribunal has granted the
\nrelief in spite of the judgment of the Apex Court, which squarely  covers  the
\nissue in  the  present  case.    We are not concerned with the decision of the
\nTribunal in O.A.No.981 of 2000 and it cannot be  the  basis  for  rendering  a
\ndecision  contrary  to the law laid down by the Apex Court which is binding on
\nall concerned under Articles 141 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  The Tribunal in the present case has also come to the  conclusion
\nthat  since the allottees have not requested for any allotment, Rule 11 of the
\nRules will not be applicable and HRA cannot be denied.   Since  the  allotment
\nwas  made  suo motu, Rule 11 of the Rules was held to be not applicable to the
\npresent case.  As has been very clearly held by the Apex Court, the  power  to
\nallot quarters is very much available with the authorities and that is so even
\nunder the  Rules.   Hence, the allotment made as per priority list is in order
\nand consequently on refusal to accept the allotment, the respondents  teachers
\nwill be  disentitled  to  the  HRA.    The  judgment of the Apex Court clearly
\nfortifies such a view.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The contesting respondents cannot as a matter of right claim that
\nthe HRA should be paid and the HRA recovered should be refunded.  The order of
\nthe Tribunal suffers from error  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  record  and
\nmisreading  of Rule 4(4) of the Rules and contrary to the judgment of the Apex
\nCourt cited above.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation  to  set  aside
\nthe order  of  the  Tribunal.    Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is set
\naside.  The writ petitions are allowed.  The petitioners-KVS will be  entitled
\nto  make  allotment in accordance with the Rules and as per the priority list.
\nNo costs.  W.P.M.Ps.  are closed.\n<\/p>\n
cs\/ts<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21\/04\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P. No.38937 of 2005 to W.P. No.38941 of 2005 and W.P. No.39594 of 2005 to W.P. No.39599 of 2005 and W.P. No.36183 of 2065 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-14T10:23:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-14T10:23:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4297,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\",\"name\":\"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-14T10:23:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-14T10:23:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-14T10:23:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006"},"wordCount":4297,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006","name":"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-14T10:23:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-principal-vs-d-sarala-on-21-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Principal vs D.Sarala on 21 April, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}