Heera Singh Gill vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that in accordance with the letter dated 13.06.2005 of the Ministry of Defence which ordered payment of house rent allowances to the employees, the applicant was receiving house rent allowance from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 10.03.2005 along with arrears which remain continued to be paid till 03.05.2018. However, the respondents vide office note dated 07.01.2019, ordered for recovery of the payment of HRA from the applicant. The OA states that similar was the situation with many employees and therefore they (along with the applicant) approached before the Tribunal and their OA No 205 of 2020 titled Ram Shankar Shukla and others Vs Union of India and others. The OA was allowed restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of past HRA which was already paid to Central Administrative Tribunal^{such employees. By way of this OA, it has been claimed that the} respondents have not refunded the recovered amount to the applicant and thus, he prays for a direction to the respondents to release the amount of leave encashment for a period of 197 days along with interest in a time bound manner.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was initially appointed on the post of Civil Motor Driver in the department on 10.03.2005. After joining services, no government accommodation was allowed to him and as such he was entitled to receive the payment of house rent allowances as per rules but the same was not being paid to the applicant. Then, a letter dated 13.06.2005 was issued from the Ministry of Defence DGQA/ADM/RMD (CW) ordering the payment of HRA to those employees, who do not possess government accommodation. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the applicant started receiving HRA from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 10.03.2005 along with arrears up to 03.05.2018. However, vide office note dated 07.01.2019, the respondents ordered for recovery of HRA already paid to the applicant in compliance of the letter dated 13.06.2005. Similar was the case with several other employees also. At no point of time, the applicant was issued show cause notice inviting his reply or granting him opportunity of hearing before inflicting the order of recovery. Feeling aggrieved, 84 similarly situated persons (including the applicant) approached before Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal through Original Application No 205 of 2020 (Rama Shanker Shukla and others Vs Union of India and others). The OA was allowed on 25.01.2024 and recovery order dated 30.01.2020 and 03.05.2018 were quashed with following directions:

Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the Central Administrative Tribunal^{applicant supplied the aforesaid judgment to the respondents but} instead of complying with the order, the respondents had illegally withheld the amount of leave encashment after his retirement on 30.04.2023.

Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that some other employees who were party in the OA No 205 of 2020 have again approached before this Tribunal vide OA No 723 of 2023 and the said OA was allowed vide order dated 29.08.2024 vide following directions:

Thus, referring to aforesaid quoted cases, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the applicant is liable to be granted similar relief and thus the OA be allowed and the respondents be directed to release the amount of leave encashment for a period of 197 days along with interest.

Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the counter affidavit, argued that the HRA was erroneously paid to the applicant and several other employees and therefore, necessary orders were issued for the recovery of the same. Further, the order passed by the Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No 205 of 2020 wherein the applicant was also a party, was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad through Writ Petition, which is under process. Thus, as per the direction of the competent authority, the entire amount of leave encashment could not be paid to the applicant as there is a possibility of some money being recoverable from him after decision on the writ petition. Similarly, a writ petition has also been directed to be filed Central Administrative Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment and order passed in OA No 723 of 2023. Thus, learned counsel argued that no amount as prayed by the applicant can be released to him at this stage and hence the OA lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records.

Since the facts of the case have already been recorded above in detail and therefore the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The HRA paid to the applicant from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 10.03.2005 along with arrears up to 03.05.2018 was directed to be recovered vide respondents office note dated 07.01.2019. Many similarly situated employees along with the applicant approached before the Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA No 205 of 2020 and the OA was allowed restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action of recovery of past HRA already paid to the employees. Later, similarly situated persons who were party in the aforesaid OA again approached before this Tribunal vide OA No 723 of 2023. The said OA was decided vide order dated 29.08.2024 directing the respondents to reconsider the case of those employees and refund them the amount if their claims are found genuine. The applicant of the instant case was also an applicant in OA No 205 of 2020 and therefore, in existence of a clear direction in that judgment to the respondents through which they were restrained from taking any coercive action of recovery of past HRA, the respondents should have considered the case of the applicant also, especially when the applicant had supplied the copy of the said judgment to the respondents authorities. The case of the applicant finds further strength from the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in OA No 723 of 2023 which has been quoted above.

Thus, strictly in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No 205 of 2020 and OA No 723 of 2023 which have been quoted above, the instant original application is allowed. The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the case of the Central Administrative Tribunal^{applicant within a period of three months from the date of} receipt of certified copy of this order. If the applicant is found eligible for leave encashment as per eligiblity, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to pay the amount along with the interest @ GPF rate.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.