AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The respondent was the original writ petitioner and an employee of the State Government. Her husband was an employee of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank. The question was whether both were entitled to house rent allowance under the Office Memorandum dated 2 January 1976 as amended on 19 January 1977. The learned Single Judge held that the husband could not be considered a State employee and that the Tripura State Cooperative Bank could not be compared with a nationalised bank or State sector undertaking, and therefore held that both the writ petitioner and her husband were entitled to draw house rent allowance. The State appealed against that judgment.
Law Points
Whether employees of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank fall within sub-para (ii) of para 5 of the Office Memorandum dated 2 January 1976 as amended on 19 January 1977, so that where one spouse is a State Government employee and the other is an employee of such a bank at the same station, both are not entitled to house rent allowance. The court also considered whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the bank was not covered by the said sub-para.
Acts & Articles
Constitution of India, Article 12; Office Memorandum dated 2 January 1976 as amended on 19 January 1977, para 5, sub-para (ii).
Judgments Referred
No prior decisions are cited. The judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 28.11.2007 in Civil Rule No. 206 of 1998, was set aside.
Obiter Dicta
Not discussed in this judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
Sub-para (ii) of para 5 of the Office Memorandum contains an inclusive definition. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis and a purposive interpretation, the organisations covered include public sector bodies and bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Since nationalised banks, the Life Insurance Corporation, the Indian Airlines Corporation and aided educational institutions are covered, and since the majority of shares of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank are held by the State Government and the Cooperative Society is a State within Article 12, employees of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank fall within the purview of sub-para (ii). Accordingly, where one spouse is a State Government employee and the other is an employee of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank at the same station, both are not entitled to house rent allowance.
Final Ruling
The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.11.2007 in Civil Rule No. 206 of 1998 was set aside and consequently the writ petition was dismissed. No order as to costs. The respondent's claim that both she and her husband were entitled to house rent allowance failed.
Plain-Language Gist
The respondent worked for the State Government and her husband worked for the Tripura State Cooperative Bank. The High Court held that the bank is covered by the house rent allowance rules in the same way as nationalised banks and similar public bodies, so the couple could not both claim the allowance. The State's appeal was allowed and the original writ petition was dismissed.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
Deepak Gupta, C.J.—The short question involved in this appeal is whether the respondent in the appeal (original writ petitioner) who is an employee of the State Government and her husband who is an employee of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank were both entitled to house rent allowance or not. It is not disputed that the employees of the Government of Tripura are governed by the Office Memorandum dated 2nd January, 1976 as amended on 19th January, 1977 in so far as grant of house rent allowance is concerned. Para 5 of the Office Memorandum as amended reads as follows:
(i) In case where both the husband and the wife are the employees of the State Government, the allowance will be admissible either to the husband or to the wife, whichever is more favourable to them, provided that either or both of them are otherwise eligible and posted at the same station. If they are posted in different stations, the allowance will be admissible to both of them.
(ii) In case where either the husband or the wife is an employee of this Government and other is an employee of the Central Government/State Government/Autonomous Public Undertakings/Semi-Government's Organisations like Municipality, Nationalised Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India, IAC, etc/State Sector Undertaking like T.R.T.C., T.H.H.D.C./TSIC or Government aided educational Institutions and where the husband and wife are both posted in the same station, the drawal of allowance by the employee of this Government will be regulated as shown below:-
The learned Single Judge held that since the husband of the original writ petitioner was an employee of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank he could not be considered to be an employee of the State and also held that the Tripura State Cooperative Bank cannot be compared with the Nationalized Bank or State Sector Undertakings and as such both the writ petitioner and her husband were entitled to draw house rent allowance. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed the present appeal.
We have heard Sri J. Majumder, learned counsel for the State and Sri D. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the respondent/original writ petitioner.
Sub para (ii) of para 5 of the Office Memorandum extracted hereinabove shows that the definition in the latter part of the para is not a complete definition but is only an inclusive definition. In the first part of the definition it is written that the employees of Central Government/State Government/Autonomous Public Undertakings/Semi Government Organizations, like Municipality, Nationalized Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India, IAC, etc. This clearly indicates that the exclusion was not limited to only those undertakings mentioned in this sub para but it was to include other organizations of similar nature.
One of the well known principles of interpretation is the principle of "Ejusdem Generis" where the definition must be taken to its logical conclusion to include things which are similar to those mentioned in the main part of the section, clause, para, etc. When Nationalized Banks, Life Insurance Corporation, Indian Airlines Corporation have been included it is more than obvious that the intention of the legislature was that all those organizations, which had the element of being Public Sector Bodies or being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, would be covered under this sub para and employees of such organizations would be covered under this sub para.
We are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge or his conclusion that employees of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank are not covered under para (ii). We have to consider the entire matter in a holistic manner. The intention of the legislature was that where both spouses are Government employees or where one is a Government employee and the other is working with either the State or Central Government or Public Sector Undertaking of the State or the Government or other such Semi-Government Organizations, Nationalized Banks, etc., then both of them would not get house rent. The interpretation has to be purposive. The purpose is to ensure that both spouses do not get house rent, especially when they are employed by the Government/Government Undertakings/Semi Government Undertakings and Bodies of similar nature. When Nationalized Banks, Indian Airlines Corporation and Aided Educational Institutions have been covered and the words, "like" and "etc." have been used, it is but obvious that the employees of the Cooperative Bank would also be covered. It is not disputed that majority of the shares of Cooperative Bank are held by the State Government. The Cooperative Society is also a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that employees of the Tripura State Cooperative Bank also fall within the purview of sub para (ii).
In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 28.11.2007 in Civil Rule No. 206 of 1998 and, consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.