Dr. Mira Sinha vs The State of West Bengal

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The Petitioner in this writ petition dated January 31st, 2005 is questioning the decision of the Respondents that she was not entitled to home rent allowance from the time she enjoyed rent free accommodation provided by the college.

She was working as a lecturer at Balurghat Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Balurghat. From 1990 she was provided rent free accommodation by the college in its hostel campus. Though she was enjoying such rent free accommodation provided by the college, she continued to draw home rent allowance at the rate of 15 per cent of her basic pay. On reaching the age of superannuation she retired from services on January 31st, 2003. The college authority forwarded all papers for payment of her retirement benefits. On the basis of such papers pension payment order was issued. But the treasury officer, detecting the irregularity, declined to release the benefits. By a letter dated February 7th, 2003 he intimated the principal of the college that during the period the Petitioner enjoyed rent free accommodation provided by the college, she was not entitled to draw any home rent allowance.

The director of public instruction initially issued an order informing the college that the Petitioner was not entitled to home rent allowance when she was enjoying rent free accommodation provided by the college. Several decisions were given by the director, and ultimately he expressed the view that since the hostel in question was not an approved one and there was no scope for the Petitioner to work as hostel superintendent that she did without any extra payment, she was entitled to draw home rent allowance, though she enjoyed the rent free accommodation provided by the college.

Regarding grant of home rent allowance to the whole-time teachers of non-government colleges residing in quarters provided by the college the government issued the order No. 2453-Edn (CS) dated December 13th, 1991. It was clearly stated in that order that no home rent allowance would be admissible to the teachers or employees of non-government aided colleges, if they were provided rent free family quarters or accommodation by the college authority.

There is no dispute in the present case that during the period in question rent free accommodation was provided to the Petitioner by the college. The question is whether the accommodation was not to be treated as a rent free accommodation, since the hostel was not an approved one and the post of hostel superintendent was not in existence. In my view, those two aspects are absolutely relevant for examining the question whether the college provided the Petitioner a rent free accommodation. On the ground that she was not getting any extra payment for working as hostel superintendent or that the hostel was not an approved one, she could not draw home rent allowance, even while enjoying the accommodation. But home rent allowance was drawn by her.

In my view, she drew the home rent allowance in contravention of the government order. The director of public instruction, squarely bound by the government order, was not competent to take a decision to the contrary. To my mind, the treasury officer was absolutely right in pointing out that while enjoying rent free accommodation provided by the college, the Petitioner was not entitled to draw home rent allowance. Hence home rent allowance drawn by her during the period in question was to be treated as amount overdrawn by her, and that was to be recovered from her retirement benefits.

I do not find any reason to direct the Respondents to pay anything on account of interest for belated payment of retirement benefits. The illegality was pointed out by the treasury officer immediately after the Petitioner''s retirement from service. On the facts, I find no reason to say that the Respondents were negligent in the matter. The illegal drawl of home rent allowance by the Petitioner needed a settlement, and steps were taken for that.

For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering that all retirement benefits payable to the Petitioner, if not already paid, shall be paid after adjusting the amount she drew on account of home rent allowance during the period in question. There shall be no order for costs in the writ petition. Prayer for stay is considered and rejected.

In view of this order, the application (CAN No. 8812 of 2006) taken out by the fourteenth Respondent loses significance. The application, not appearing today is treated as on the day''s list, and it is ordered that it shall be deemed to be disposed of.

Urgent certified xerox copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned.