S C Jain vs M/o Steel on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

By Smt. Mallika Arya, JM.-

The present original application has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to refund amount of Rs. 2,11,555/- deducted from him towards HRA .

2. The applicant was transferred from Bhilai Steel Plant to the IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur vide order dated 17.11.2014. On his request, he was allowed to retain the accommodation provided by the Steel Plant at Bhilai w.e.f. 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2015 (Annexure A-3) on payment of usual charge as per rules of the company. Ac per the request of the applicant, the retention of the said accommodation was extended up to 15.11.2017 vide order dated 24.11.2016. The applicant also filed an application for extension of retention for the accommodation for fourth years. However, the respondents deducted amount of Rs. 2,11,555/- from the salary for the month of June 2018 on the ground that the applicant did not submit declaration about the HRA received by his wife, who was working as Assistant Professor at Kalyan P.G. College, Bhilai. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the respondents have illegally deducted the amount of 2,11,555/- from

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

the applicant as no prior notice or information was given to him. The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has already submitted a declaration on 12.04.2016 (Annexure A-5). The applicant has also intimated the Chief Executive Officer, SAIL/ISP, Burnpur vide his application dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure A-5 at page 20 of OA) that his spouse is employed in a private organization at Bhilai and they are getting HRA separately. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this fact was also intimated to the ISP with supporting document with first application of retention. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for HRA in accordance with the Circular No. PER/ESS/4087 dated 19.01.2016. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the action of the respondents in deducting the amount towards HRA is illegal and unjust and has prayed to allow the OA.

3. The respondents have contested the OA and have filed their reply stating therein the wife of the applicant Smt. Santosh Jain, Assistant Professor at Kalyan P.G College, Bhilai was receiving HRA since 01.01.2001. The respondents have also stated that as per HRA rules effective from 16.01.2016, where one of the spouse is employed

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

in SAIL and another in any government/PSU and stationed at the same location, the HRA would be paid to the employee only if the spouse is not drawing any HRA from his/her organization. In the present OA, the wife of the applicant was getting HRA for accommodation allotted to the applicant at Bhilai Steel Plant. Even on transfer, to ISP, Burnpur, the applicant was drawing HRA at Burnpur and his wife was also drawing HRA after the circular dated 16.01.2016 and continued to do so till the applicant opted for voluntary retirement. Since, no other address had been furnished by the applicant at ISP, Burnpur, therefore, amount received by his wife towards HRA was deducted from his salary w.e.f. 19.01.2016. As the applicant took voluntary retirement, therefore total recoverable amount of Rs. 2,11,555/- has been deducted from the applicant.

4. We have heard learned brief holder of the applicant’s counsel through video conferencing. As nobody had appeared on behalf of the respondents, 15 days time was granted to them to file written submission. However, no written submission has been filed within stipulated period.

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

5. It is not disputed that after the applicant was transferred from Bhilai Steel Plant to ISP, Burnpur, he retained the accommodation provided by the company at Bhilai for a period of three years from 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2017. The said accommodation of the company was allowed to be retained by the applicant on his own request. As per rules, he was drawing 20% of his basic pay towards HRA i.e. the rate applicable at Bhilai while being posted at Burnpur. Simultaneously, the wife of the applicant, was also drawing HRA from her organization and staying in the same accommodation which was provided to the applicant by his company.

6. It is not disputed that after the applicant was transferred from Bhilai Steel Plant to ISP, Burnpur, he retained the accommodation provided by the company at Bhilai for a period of three years from 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2017. The said accommodation was allowed to be retained by the applicant on his own request. As per order dated 17.01.2015 (Annexure A-3), HRA facility was allowed to the applicant for one year from 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2015 at the rate applicable at Bhilai i.e. 20% basic pay. The

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

retention of the said accommodation was extended upto 15.11.2017 on request of the applicant himself.

7. We have further noted from the order dated 20.06.2018 (Annexure R-9) that the recovery has been inflicted upon the applicant towards the HRA received by his wife from her organization as per the Circular No. PER/ESS/4087 dated 19.01.2016 (Annexure R-11). Para (a) and (b) of the said Circular is reproduced below: - “a). In cases, where both the spouses are employed in the Company and are posted at the same location only one of them will be paid HRA.

b). in cases, where one spouse is employed in SAIL, another in Govt/other Public Sector/any other organization and are stationed at the same location, HRA would be paid only if the spouse is not drawing HRA from Govt./other Public Sector/any other organization where he or she is employed.”

8. The word “any other organization” covers the applicant’s case and in view of this, dual HRA is not permissible to the applicant. In the present case, the applicant and his wife had been drawing HRA even after the date of Circular dated 16.01.2016 and continued to avail the same till the applicant retired voluntarily.

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY

9. Having regard to the above position, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in recovering amount of 2,11,555/- towards HRA from the dues of the applicant is in accordance with the rules of the Company. Hence, we do not find any merit in the claim of the applicant and the Original application deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, Original Application No. 1052/2019 is dismissed.

10. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off

11. There will be no order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya)

(Rajinder Singh Dogra) Administrative Member

Judicial Member Anand…

ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY