The
State of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Ranbindra Nath Sengupta
& Ors [1998] INSC 198 (31 March 1998)
G.N.
Ray, K. Venkataswami G.N. Ray. J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
The
31st day of march, 1998 present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice G.N. Ray Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami A.K. Mitter,
Additional Solicitor General, Joydeep Kai, Rana Mukherjee, Goodwill Indeevar,
Advs., with him for the appellants. M.C. Bhandare, Sr, Adv., Ranji Thomas and
S. Menon, Advs.. with him for the Respondents.
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Leave
granted,
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
This
appeal is directed against Judgment dated 17.5.1994 passed by the Division
Bench of Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1966 of 1992 allowing the appeal
and setting aside the judgment of the Single Bench of the said High Court in
the Writ Petition being Civil Rule No. 1136. (W) of 1990.
The
aforesaid writ petition was made by the respondents Rabindra Nath Sengupta and
other petitioners being employees of the State Government who had been allotted
government flats and had been paying assessed amounts for such occupation and
were enjoying the House Rent Allowance.
In
order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it will be appropriate
to note certain facts. After the submissions of Third Pay Commission's Report,
the West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as ROPA Rules) was published, In the writ petition
being CR No. 11360 (W) of 1997, the writ petitioners challenged the provisions of
House Rent Allowance in the ROPA Rules and the Notification issued in this
regard. The ROPA Rules provided for House Rent Allowance to the following
effect:- "House Rent Allowance: With effect from the 1" January, 1988
the House Rent Allowance admissible to a Government employee shall be 15% of
basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs.800/- per month. The ceiling of the House
Rent Allowance drawn by husband and wife taken together was also been raised to
Rs. 800/- per month. The allowance may be drawn, without reference to quantum
rent paid, by all Government employees (other than those provided with
accommodation owned/hired by Government) without requiring them to produce rent
receipt. They should however be required to furnish a certificate to the effect
that they are incurring some expenditure on rent/contributing towards rent.
House
Rent Allowance at the above rate shall also be paid to Government employees
living in their own houses, subject to their furnishing a certificate that they
are paying/contributing towards house of property tax or maintenance of the
house. Pending fixation of licence fees according to the system recommended by
the Pay Commission, the drawal of House Rent Allowance by Government employees
provided with accommodation owned/hired by Government and recovery of licence
fee from them shall be regulated as follows:-
(1)
For those employees living in flats for which assessment of rent has been made
and the occupier pays assessed rent as licence fee and draws usual house rent
allowance the drawal of house rent allowance shall be further limited to the
actual assessed rent allowance shall be further limited to the actual assessed
rent paid.
(2)
For those employees paying licence fee as percentage of pay, the recovery shall
be frozen at the level at which the licence fee was recovered from the pay
bills for December, 1989 in the unrevised scale.
All
other conditions regarding drawal House Rent Allowance by Government employees
and recovery of licence fee from them shall, in so far as they are not
inconsistent with these decisions, continue to hold good." It may be
stated here that till 1994, the occupation of housing estates belonging to the
State Government was regulated by the West bengal Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. The amount assessed for
occupation of Government housing estates was termed `rent'. Previously, some
dispute about the House Rent Allowance for occupiers of Government flats were
raise in writ petition being CR No. 1527(W) of 1973. (Sri Deba Prasad Mukherjee
vs. The Financial Commissioner as Secretary, etc.) Such Writ Petition was
disposed of by the Calcutta High Court by order dated 28.1.1996 passed by
consent of parties in the following terms:- "Upon the petitioner being
agreeable to pay assessed rent calculated as per relevant principles for such
occupation, the petitioners will be entitled to compensatory house rent
allowance in accordance with Rules." The department of housing, Government
of West Bengal issued a memorandum on 28th January, 1978 laying down that the
Government employees occupying accommodation provided to them by the Housing
Department of State Government in the rental housing estate, meant exclusively
for the State government employees, should have option either to pay
"assessed rent" that may be fixed by the Government in accordance
with the accepted principles and to draw the admissible house rent allowance or
to pay a fixed percentage of their pay as rent and forego the house rent
allowance. It is the case of the writ petitioner that they had availed the
option of paying the assessed rent and drawing admissible house rent allowance.
A
second opportunity to exercise such option was given to the government
employees occupying flats of the Government Housing Department in 1984, the
West Bengal Premises (Regulation and Occupancy) Act 1984 came into force. Under
the said act, the occupation charge for such government flats was termed `licence
fee' instead of an `assessed rent'.
The
contention raised in the writ petition (CR 11360 (w) of 1990 was inter alia
that refusal by the government to grant house rent allowance to the writ
petitioners at per with government employees in occupation of private rented
houses or personal accommodations was not only contrary to the decision
rendered by consent in C.R, 1527 (W) of 1973 but also contrary to the policy
regarding house rent allowance being persistently followed by the State
Government for at least the decade. it was contended that the government
employees who had been living in privately rented accommodations or in their
own accommodations were entitled to 15% of their pay as house rent allowance
per month subject to the ceiling of Rs. 800/- Irrespective of whatever rent or
expenses being incurred by them for such private or personal accommodation.
Denial of such privileges to the writ petitioner in occupation of flats in
government housing estates amounted to hostile discrimination not being
informed by any valid reason.
Such
contentions of the writ petitioners were opposed by the State Government by
contending that government employees living in government accommodation had
always been treated as a separate class distinct from government employees
either living in privately rented accommodation or in personal accommodations.
Such distinction was not unreal but based on reasonable criteria. It was also
contended that the Third Pay Commission had gone into the question referred to
it about the complications, bifurcations, division of payment and drawal of
house rent allowance by government employees living in government
accommodation. The Pay Commission addressed to itself such question and made
its recommendation as to how house rent allowance would be paid to government
employees occupying government flats. Such recommendation was accepted and ROPA
rules were framed. It was further contended that as a matter of fact, the
policy adopted by the State Government for payment of house rent allowance is
less rigid than that of the Central Government where not only no house rent
allowance was allowed to these residing in government accommodation but such
employees were required to pay rent/licence fee. The State Government on the
contrary, has allowed the employees residing in Government accommodation to be
paid house rent allowance to the extent of actual rent licence fee paid. it was
contended that the writ petitioner, as a matter of fact were residing in rent
free accommodations because they were entitled to reimbursement of whatever
amount of licence fee required to be paid for occupying flats in the Government
Housing Estates. It was also contended that licence fee for occupation of
Government flats by the Government employees was not only very reasonable but
quite low compared to rent for similar accommodation in private houses.
Precisely for the said reason no government employees had desired to leave
government accommodation for shifting to private accommodation on the score of
alternative cheaper accommodation.
The
Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding inter alia
that the writ petitioner did not controvert. the statement on behalf of the
State Government that the policy of house rent allowance of the State
Government was more liberal and beneficial to the employees than the policy
followed by Central Government and the impugned house rent policy of the State
Government and the impugned house rent policy of the State Government was not
unreasonable. The learned Judge has specifically indicated that the writ
petitioners did not contend that they had been living in government accommodation,
the rental of which, if in private accommodation, would have been less than 15%
of their emoluments. The learned Judge also held that the Government was
competence to revise the policy decision regarding payment of house rent
allowance and it was not bound by the earlier policy decision or by the
decision in the earlier writ petition since disposed of by consent of parties.
As
aforesaid, such decision of the Single Bench was assailed before a Division
Bench of the High Court in FMAT No. 1966 of 1992 and by the impugned judgment,
the Division Bench has allowed the Writ Petition by holding inter alia that the
State Government had also let out government flats to private persons on rental
basis and it was not disclosed what special benefits were given to the
government employees in service when allowed to occupy government flats which
were not given to the members of public when allowed to occupy government flats
on rent. The Division Bench has held that in this case, the State Government
has failed to make out any reasonable basis for different treatment to
government officer in occupation of their personal accommodations or
accommodations arranged with private persons and the government employees
occupying government flats on payment of assessed licence fee. It has also been
held that the actum of giving some concession in the matter of fixation of licence
fee to the government employees occupying government flats is wholly irrelevant
and "if payability of the rent is not the factor for the purpose of
granting house rent allowances, in that event, making some concession in the
matter of assessment of rent payable by the second category of the State
Government employees is not at all a relevant consideration for the purpose of
making a discrimination. If the object of granting house rent allowances was
intended to reimburse the house rent paid or payable by the employees wholly or
in part, in that even this classification could have been said to be reasonable
and such classification could have same nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. But those who have no liability to pay rent and those who pay a
nominal amount as rent and on the contrary, get a lumpsum amount as house rent
allowances, which is not a compensation nor reimbursement, cannot be said to be
a different group from the other.". The Division Bench by allowing the
writ petition directed the State Government not to make any discrimination
between the government employees in the matter of payment of house rent
allowances.
Mr.
A.K. Mitter, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants,
has submitted that for the purpose of house rent allowance, the State
Government employees have been classified into categories under ROPA Rules,
namely,
i)
These employees who are provided with accommodation owned/hired by the State
Government will get House Rent Allowance (HRA) limited to the actual rent/licence
fee.
ii)
Those employees who are not provided with the accommodation in flats
hired/owned by the State Government will get HRA at the rate of 15% of basic
pay subject to maximum of Rs.800/- per month and will have to bear the
accommodation expenses.
The
learned Solicitor has submitted that such classification was in existence since
1948. For the first time in 1978, by an executive order it was provided that
the State Government employees will get full HRA out of which they would pay
the charges for their accommodation. The Third Pay Commission considered
various aspects of HRA and came to the finding that the principle of HRA as
introduced by the executive order in 1978 had introduced an element of unjust
profit to the government employees who had been provided with government
accommodation and there had been great demand or government accommodation made
available at very low rate.
The
learned Solicitor has contended that in order to satisfy the test of reasonable
classification, two conditions must be fulfilled as indicated by the Division
Bench of the High Court, namely, such classification must be founded on
intelligible differentia and it would also have a rational nexus to the object
of the scheme of HRA.
The
learned Solicitor has submitted that the HRA, is in lieu of accommodation not
made available to the employees and HRA is not a matter of right. In support
such contention, reference has been made to the decision of this Court in
Director, Central Plantation Crops Research (1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 633). The
learned Solicitor has contended that there is intelligible differential between
two groups of government employees, namely, government employees provided with
accommodation in government flats and employees who have not been so provided.
The
learned Solicitor has also submitted that the impugned principle of HRA has
been formulated on the basis of advice by an expert body like Pay Commission
which took into consideration various aspects of HRA. The policy decision is in
the domain of executive authority of the State Government. So long such policy
decision is not arbitrary, capricious and based on no reason thereby offending
Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court should not outstep its limit and
tinker with the policy decision of the State Government. In the connection,
reference has been made to the decision of this Court in M.P. Oil SCC 592).
The
learned Solicitor has further submitted that the writ petitioners have alleged
that some o f the government employees who have not been provided with
government accommodation are paying less than the amount received as HRA for
their private accommodations. The learned Solicitor has contended that
particulars or instances in support such contention have not been given by the
writ petitioners.
Even
if in some cases, some government employees are required to pay for their
private accommodations at the rates less than the amounts receivable by way of
HRA, such few instances cannot affect the policy decision. The fortuitous
circumstances, even in a few cases, under which some government employees not
being provided with government accommodation may gain pecuniary advantage,
cannot affect the HRA policy which is otherwise reasonable and not wholly
capricious and arbitrary.
The
learned Solicitor has submitted that although the Division Bench has correctly
indicated the import of Article 14 of the Constitution in the matter of hostile
discrimination but it has failed to appreciate the fact situation in this case
and has proceeded erroneously on the footing that the government employees
being given full HRA for not being provided with government accommodation stand
on advantageous position than the government employees provided with government
accommodation and therefore not being paid the full HRA and such discriminatory
treatment to two sets of government employees offends Article 14 and such
discrimination does not conform to reason.
The
learned Solicitor has contended that under the West Bengal Government Premises
(Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, the government premises were defined as
premises owned by the State Government or by the government undertaking.
The
grounds of termination of tenancy were enumerated in Section 3. Cessation of
employment under the State Government was not a ground for termination of
tenancy. The State buildings which were thrown open to the public for
residential accommodation, were not allotted to the occupant qua government
employees. Such position was substantially altered by the West Bengal
Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act, 1984. Section 24 of the 1984
Act given an overriding effect to the said Act and Sub-Section 2 of Section 24
expressly provides that the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy
Regulation) Act. 1978 shall not apply to the government premises. The Preamble
of the said 1984 Act indicates that there are government premises meant for a
employees of State Government only and it was necessary to prevent unlawful
occupation of such premises.
The
`State premises' means any premises belonging to or taken on lease or licence
or requisitioned by the State Government. Under Section 2 (n) `Public Premises'
means State premises in respect of which a declaration has been made under
Section 3 of the said Act and includes these mentioned in Schedule if of the
Act (Section 2 (k)).
The
learned Solicitor has submitted that `government premises' are earmarked only
for the employees of the State government and a licence for such occupation can
be granted only to an employees of the State government under Section 4 of the
1984 Act, Every licence in respect of government premises will stand
automatically terminated on constitution of employment of the licenses under
the State Government or on his death (Section 2 (i). The 1984 Act provides for licence
fees. The Third pay Commission has recommended for nominal made of licence fee.
The learned Solicitor has also submitted that there is distinction between licence
and tenancy. While lease or tenancy confers some interest on the land, licence
gives only personal privilege to the licensee with no interest in the land. The
test of exclusive possession is not conclusive. The Act of 1984 expressly
provides for terminator of licence on cessation of employment. It is thus clear
that no personal interest in the accommodation has been created by such
licensee. The privilege of accommodation in government premises as licensee is
co-terminus with the government service.
The
learned Solicitor has also submitted that acceptance of government
accommodation as licensee is optional and the writ petitioners have accepted
such government accommodation. It has been contended by the learned solicitor
that the writ petitioners intend to take advantage twice over. The writ
petitioners only claim accommodation in government premises by paying at a low
rate of licence fee, but they also claim full amount of HRA so as to make
unreasonable profit. The learned Solicitor has also contended that the consent
order passed in the earlier writ proceeding being binding between the parties,
the order was implemented by the State Government by issuing Memorandum dated 20th January, 1978. Such consent was given on the
basis of existing policy of the state government in the matter of grant of HRA.
When the Third Pay Commission recommended for change of policy regarding HRA,
the government framed ROPA Rules of 1990 under which the earlier policy about
grant of HRA was changed. The said 1984 Act was passed for regulating the licence
in respect of the government premises allotted only to the government employees
In service making such licence co-terminus with the employment. That apart, the
State Government was within its rights to change the policy. The consent order
on the basis of the earlier policy will not preclude the government from
revising the policy in the matter of HRA. The learned Solicitor has informed in
response to the querry that there are about 12000 employees of the State
Government who have been provided with government accommodation and the writ
petitioners are only 134 in number. He has submitted that it will be not just
and proper to allow these 134 employees the benefit of full amount of HRA by
occupying government accommodation as licensees by paying nominal licence fee
for such accommodation. The learned Solicitor has, therefore, submitted that
the impugned judgment of the Division Bench should be set aside and the
judgment passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition should
be uphold by this Court.
Mr.
M.C. Bhandare, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ
petitioners-respondents, has submitted that the government employees going to
be affected by the revised decision of the State Government relating to grant
of HRA to the government employees given accommodation in government premises,
are only about 10,000 out of about total 10 lacs State government it employees
i.e. only 1% of the total strength of the government employees. Mr. Bhandare
has also submitted that the government accommodation allotted to the writ
petitioners are not staff quarters. The government premises are also let out to
private individuals who are not government employees. Initially, the government
premises were governed by the said West Bengal Premises, Tenancy Regulation
Act, 1976 and from 1976 to 1990, all government employees irrespective of the
fact whether they has occupied government accommodation or not were paid HRA at
8% of their salaries. After the enactment of West Bengal Government Promises (Regulation
of Occupancies) Act, 1984, the government premises were divided into two
categories, namely, `government' premises' and `public premises' Under Section
***) or 1984, Act, Government promises means premises which has not public
premises and under Section 2 (k) public premises means State premises in
respect of which a declaration has been made under Section 3 and includes the
State government premises mentioned in Schedule II. Under Section 3(1) of the
said Act, the government may be Notification, declare any premises to be public
premises.
Under
Section 27, the State Government may dispense with or relax the requirement of
any of the provision of this Act in respect of any government premises. Under
the 1984 Act, the government employees residing in government houses have been
deprived of tenancy rights and such employees have become licensees. But
government employees who are residing in some LIG/MIG/HIG flats termed as
`public premises' under the 1984 Act have not become licensees but they retain
their tenancy right sin the flats owned by the government. Mr. Bhandare has
submitted that the 1984 Act has made unreasonable and illegal distinction
between `government premises' and `public premises'. The public premises have
been taken out of the regulation and control under the 1984 Act. The Writ
Petitioners-respondents after enactment of the said Act, became licenses of the
premises and thus forfeited the tenancy right to continue occupation in
government flats after their retirement as well as their heirs loosing the
right to inherit the right to reside in such premises. Mr. Bhandare has
submitted that the government premises as defined under the 1984 Act is not
correct. It is also contended that the `government premises' are not occupied
exclusively by the government employees and government premises are also
occupied by the private persons. Mr. Bhandare has submitted that the
classification between two sets of employes, namely, the employees who have
been provided with accommodation owned or hired by the government and the
employees who have not been provided with such accommodation and consequential
different treatment to these two types of government employees in the matter of
HRA, are without any reasonable basis and the Division Bench has rightly struck
down such distinction as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
Mr. Bhandare
has submitted that even after the 1984 Act, in respect of government premises
and public premises, both government employees and the general members of
public are residing. Mr. Bhandare has also submitted that even if it is
accepted that the status of the government employees living in government
premises after 1984 Act has changed from tenant to licensee, such change has no
relevance to the payment of HRA. Mr. Bhandare has submitted that some
LIG/MIG/HIG flats are treated as `government premises' while many other similar
flats are treated as `public premises'.
No
reasonable basis of such distinction has been made out by the State government.
Mr. Bhandare
has also submitted that it will be unjust and improper to allow the government
employees living in LIG/MIG/HIG flats and employing the status of a tenant to
draw full HRA and not to allow such HRA to unfortunate employees who held the
status of licensee in `government premises' even if they are occupying similar
flats. As such distinction is wholly unjust, improper having no reasonable
basis on which HRA is to be paid. The Division Bench of the High Court has
rightly held that such distinction offends Article `4 of the Constitution and
no interference against such judgment is called for.
Mr. Bhandare
has also submitted that the policy decision may be the prerogative of the State
Government but such policy decision must conform to the mandate under Article
14 of the Constitution. If the policy decision being unjust and discriminatory
offends the guarantee of equality under Article 14, the State government is not
permitted o contend that within its prerogative, it has framed a policy and
such revised policy should not be tinkered with by the Court.
Mr. Bhandare
has further submitted that the basic for the payment of HRA is that nobody
should be allowed to keep any money in excess of the actual house rent paid. If
99% employees are allowed to retain HRA in excess of the actual rent paid by
them, only 1% of the employees cannot be singled out and treated with
discrimination by limiting the quantum of HRA to the extent of licence fee
payable by such employees.
Mr. Bhandare
has also submitted that the flats in government premises which have been
allotted to the petitioners and similarly circumstanced employees are not being
properly maintained and considering the quality of the accommodation and the
amenities in such accommodation a low rate of licence fee has been assessed. It
will be unjust and improper to disallow payment of full HRA to the government
employees who are occupying the government flat as licensees under the 1984 Act
only because they are to pay comparatively low licence fee because of the
inferior quality of accommodation made available to them. Mr. Bhandare has
submitted that in equity and justice no interference is called for against the
impugned judgment and this appeal should therefore be dismissed.
After
giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the submissions made by the respective counsel for the parties, it appears to
use that distinction between two classes of government employees, namely, those
who have been provided with government accommodation qua government employees and
licence in respect of such government accommodation being co-terminus with the
service, stand on a different footing from the other government employees who
have not been provided with such government accommodation. In the instant case,
it has not been demonstrated with relevant documents that in LIG/MIG/HIG flats
belonging to the government, the government employees are allowed to continue
as tenant like ordinary members of the public by virtue of being in government
service. Even if it is assumed that some government employees have got tenancy
rights under the State Government in respect of public premises such tenancy
right has not been given qua government servant but as member of public. Under
the 1984 Act, allotment of government flat in `government premises' can only be
made as licensee, period of licence being co terminus with employment. Hence,
occupation of a government servant as a tenant under the State is not similar
as the occupation as a licensee in `government premises'. It has also not been demonstrated
with supporting documents as to how many government employees have been given
tenancy in government premises and how many members of public have also been
allowed to remain there as tenant. Under the 1984 Act, allotment of government
flat in `government premises' can only be made as licensee, period of licence
being co-terminus with employment. Under the 1984 Act, the status of government
employees occupying `government premises' have been statutorily altered and
such employees have become licensees. Therefore, such licensees stand entirely
on a different footing. Such distinction has a reasonable basis and it cannot
be contended that such distinction is without any nexus to the object of grant
of HRA. It is the positive case of the State Government that the writ
petitioners are occupying government premises as defined under 1984 Act holding
the status of licensee. It is the case of the State Government that they have
been provided such government accommodation as licensee in `government premises'
which are not meant for occupation by the members of the public. Even if it is
assumed that in government premises, non government employee has been allowed
to occupy as tenant, the grant of such tenancy is not a regular affair and such
tenancy even if any in `government premises' is against the scheme under the
1984 Act. It is also the case of the State government that nominal licence fee
is required to be paid for such occupation in `government premises'. Since the
writ petitioners and the similarly circumstanced employees having accommodation
in government premises qua government employees are licensees and the licence
is co-terminus with the service, they are required to pay only nominal feo for
such occupation as found by the Pay Commission. Therefore, there is
justification that such government employees are not to be given the full
amount of HRA but they will be reimbursed to the extent of licence fee paid by
them.
In our
view, the revised policy decision in the matter of payment of HRA is not only reasonable
but also fair and just. It will be improper and unjust if by virtue of being
government employees they are favoured with accommodation in `government
premises' as licenses and on such account, are required to pay only nominal licence
for such occupation, yet they will be paid the full amount of HRA so that they
can make profit out of HRa.
It is
not the case that each and every government employee is offered government
accommodation as licensee subject to the option of the concerned government
employee either to take such government accommodation or not. It is an admitted
position that such government accommodation is very limited and only 1% of the
government employees have been provided with such government accommodation. It
has not been demonstrated that the writ petitioners have been living in
government accommodation, the rental of which in similar private accommodation
would have been less than the licence fee payable by them. One the contrary,
after considering relevant facts, the Third Pay Commission has held that such
government employees have been allowed to enjoy government accommodation on
payment of nominal sum for such occupation.
So
long the previous policy continued, the State Government had given effect to
the consent order passed by the High Court. The respondents are not entitled to
contend that the government is precluded from revising its policy in respect of
grant of HRA and once a decision is taken, such decision will remain binding
for ever.
The
Third Pay Commission has considered various aspects of HRA and it has been
indicated by the said Commission that the payment of full HRA (subject to the
extent of maximum limit) to the government employees who have been allotted
government accommodation qua government employees and paying nominal licence
fee should not be permittee to draw full HRA and thereby permitted to make
profit. It is to be noted that barring one per cent, all other government
employees have not been provided with government accommodation and they have
been compelled to arrange for their own accommodation under competitive market
rent. Considering the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission, the
government has revised the policy regarding the payment of HRA. Such revision
of policy, therefore, cannot be held to be arbitrary, capricious without any
basis and taken on the ipsi dixit of the State Government. Since the revised
policy decision of the State Government is informed by reasons and as the
distinction between different sets of government employees is also reasonable,
in our view, no interference against that policy decision is warranted. We,
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court and we uphold the decision of the learned
single Bench. In the facts and circumstances of the cast it, however, appears
to us that it would cause great hardship to the writ petitioners-respondents if
they are asked to refund any excess HRA which have been paid to them. It is,
therefore, directed that any excess amount which have been paid to the said
respondents by way of HRA need not be refunded. The aspect is accordingly,
disposed of without any order as to costs.
Back