M UMA DEVI vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 29 September 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD (TELANGANA) NO. 5-10-193, 1ST FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN,HYDERABAD - 500004 Order Sheet Item no.: 6 O.A./1189/2025 (TELANGANA) [ GRANT OF HRA ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: 9 Order Dated: 29/09/2026 M UMA DEVI Vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate : A SITA RATHNAM

For Respondent(s) Advocate : M SWARNA Order of The Tribunal Both sides present. Learned counsel for the respondents states that she had already received rejoinder in the matter and she is ready with her arguments. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is eligible for receiving HRA w.e.f 14.11.2015. As per Annexure-A5, concurrence for HRA from 14.11.2015 was given, however, the DRM in his order, dt. 03.03.2020, sanctioned it from. 04.10.2019, even though eligibility for HRA was shown as 14.11.2015 and under the cause for re-allotment, etc., "condemnation" was shown. It is argued that, as per the order, dt. 05.11.2015 (Annexure-A3), permission for vacation of Railway quarter at Chilakalguda, Secunderabad, was granted and the quarter was duly vacated on 13.11.2015, as per Annexure-A4. Because of the dilapidated condition of the quarter, it was not allotted to anyone and it was condemned, vide order, dt. 08.08.2018. According to her she is not responsible for non-allocation of the quarter after her vacation, as the quarter was in a dilapidated condition, fit for condemnation. Therefore, she cannot be blamed for any revenue loss. Learned counsel for the respondens argues that vacation order was subject to recovery of revenue loss / restriction on HRA till allotment of quarter. According to her, the applicant is liable for whatever gap was there after her vacation. When asked, learned counsel for the respondents has categorically stated that as regards occupation of the quarter till 13.11.2015, there was no irregularity on the part of the applicant. Counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to the relevant rules regarding HRA, vide RBE 98/1988 (Annexure-R3). However, she is not able to explain as to why the quarter was kept vacant till 2018 after it was vacated by the applicant. She seeks time for getting instructions in this regard. Post the matter on 14.10.2026 under the caption 'Part Heard'. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi Member (A) K Adilaxmi ( court master )