Yakshadweep Harbour Employees … vs Union Of India on 27 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 36264 of 2001(S)



1. YAKSHADWEEP HARBOUR EMPLOYEES UNION
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :27/07/2007

 O R D E R
         K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

        ===============================

                        O.P. NO. 36264 OF 2001

                  ======================

                Dated this the 27th day of July, 2007


                              J U D G M E N T

Radhakrishnan, J.

We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal.

However, we make it clear that only those members of the

applicant Association who have satisfied the conditions laid down

are entitled to double HRA. Para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by

the respondents, reads as follows:

Ext.P11 order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal held that members of the first applicant

union are entitled to get the benefit of double HRA. If

while working at Calicut they were being paid HRA

and they continue to keep their family in the place

from where they have been transferred. This order

did not clarify whether the members of the first

applicant union would be entitled to double HRA even

if they have shifted their families to their native place

or other places after they are transferred to

Lakshadweep Islands. These respondents therefore

filed Miscellaneous Application for clarification that

the members of the petitioner Union who are

similarly situated as the applicants in OA 675/91

would not be entitled to the benefit of double HRA.

The Tribunal by Ext.P15 order clarified that those who

are keeping their families at native place and not

within Municipal Limits or nearby the place of their

last posting would not be entitled to the benefit of

double HRA during their posting in the Union Territory

OP 36264/2001

: 2 :

of Lakshadweep.”

The Department was only seeking a clarification from the

Tribunal that members of association as such would not get the

benefit of double the HRA by only those eligible persons

Under such circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this

OP and the same is dismissed.

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp