M UMA DEVI vs SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 29 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon'ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member)

By this OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:

“…….to call for the Orders in proceedings No. SCR/P- SC/133/Coml. Bills/2025 dated 15.05.2025 and 19.06.2025 denying the claim of the applicant for grant of full House Rent allowance from 14.11.2015 and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the provisions Para 4.3 of Ministry of Finance OM No.2/4/2022-E-IIB dated 30.12.2022 and consequently direct the respondents to grant House Rent allowance in full as per the %/Rates fixed in terms of RBE 110 of 2008 and RBE 72 of 2017 from 14.11.2015 and as per the finance concurrence signified by the Sr. Divisional Finance Mangers vide letter No No.A/Estt.II/HRA/Corres. dated 02.01.2020, and pay the difference of the House Rent Allowance (HRA) arrears with a further direction to pay interest @ 12% per annum till the payment is released.

(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to pass order or direction as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(iii) To award cost of the application in favor of the applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was in occupation of Railway Quarter No.517/21-22, at Chilakalaguda, Secunderabad, which she surrendered on 13.11.2015, after obtaining permission for vacation from the competent authority. The applicant claims to be eligible for grant of House Rent Allowance (HRA) from 14.11.2015. Instead, Respondents allowed HRA to the Applicant from 04.10.2019, thereby, causing severe financial loss to the Applicant, who has since retired. The applicant made several representations to the respondents, who finally rejected the claim of the Applicant, vide the Impugned Order, dated 19.06.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. After Notice, respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed a detailed reply, opposing the relief, stating that the applicant was initially appointed in the Railway service as a Woman Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), South Central Railway, on 03.02.1989. Subsequently, on being medically decategorized, on 16.04.2008, she was absorbed in the Commercial Department as a Commercial Clerk. On attaining the age of superannuation, she retired on 30.06.2024.

4. While in service, the applicant, who was in occupation of Railway Quarter No 517/21 & 22 at Chilkalguda, requested the Administration to permit her to vacate the Railway quarter. In response to her request, the Competent Authority, i.e., the Sr. Divisional Security Officer, gave approval for vacation, vide Memorandum, dated 05.11.2015, "subject to recovery of revenue loss and restriction on payment of HRA till allotment of the said quarter to others as per rules". Accordingly, the applicant vacated the Railway quarters on 05.11.2015. After a gap of three years, the SSE/Works/CKL proposed condemnation of the above said railway quarter, vide letter, dated 08.08.2018, and it was condemned on 04.10.2019. The Sr.DFM/SC signified their concurrence on 02.01.2020, for drawal of HRA, subject to obtaining sanction of the competent authority and ensuring that there was no loss to the Railways on account of the quarters. Further orders were issued vide Memorandum, dated 03.03.2020, for admissibility of HRA from 04.10.2019, i.e., from the date of Condemnation of the Railway Quarters in question.

5. Respondents have contended that, the applicant was paid HRA

arrears amounting to Rs.78,906/- for the period from 04.10.2019 to 31.05.2020, through Regular Salary Bill, for the month of August, 2020. Meanwhile, the applicant did not agree with the period of eligibility and represented the issue through Trade Unions in the Zonal Permanent Negotiation Machinery Meeting for payment of HRA arrears w.e.f. 02.04.2019 instead of 04.10.2019. As per the PCPO's letter, dated 27.06.2019 (Annexure-I), this office has issued corrigendum, dated 18.05.2022 (Annexure-II), for counting eligibility for HRA on vacation of railway quarters, w.e.f. 02.04.2019 instead of 04.10.2019, and, accordingly, the applicant was paid HRA arrears from 02.04.2019 to 03.10.2019, amounting to Rs.59,360/-, through the Regular Salary Bill of September - 2022, in addition to the arrears of Rs.78,906/- paid earlier. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the OA.

6. To refute the submissions made in the reply, the applicant has filed a rejoinder.

7. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

8. (i) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is eligible for receiving HRA w.e.f 14.11.2015. As per order, dt. 02.01.2015 (Ann-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.

(ii) It is argued that, as per the Memo, dt. 05.11.2015, (Ann-A3), permission for vacation of the 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 finally condemned, vide order, dt. 08.08.2018 (Ann-A8).

(iii) The applicant cannot be held responsible for non-allocation of the quarter, after her vacation, as the quarter was in a dilapidated condition, and fit for condemnation. Therefore, she cannot be blamed for any revenue loss.

9. (i) Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the vacation order, dt. 05.11.2015, was subject to recovery of revenue loss / restriction on HRA, till the allotment of quarter. According to her, the applicant is liable for whatever gap was there after her vacation. She has drawn attention to the relevant rules regarding HRA, vide RBE 98/1988 (Ann-R3). The quarter remained vacant till 2018 after it was vacated by the applicant.

10. (i). During the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the quarters in question were not in demand and, therefore, remained vacant till 2018.

(ii) Per contra, the counsel for the applicant states that there was demand for such quarters, and several other quarters were allotted to employees, as shown at pg 21 (Ann-A6). However, the present quarter could not be offered/allotted because of its poor condition, as shown in the letter, dt.08.08.2018, of the Sr. Section Engineer Works/Chilkalguda, Hyderabad Division to the DEN/Estate/HYB (Ann-A8), where quarters were proposed for condemnation “On age cum condition basis”. The attached statement reveals the alarming condition of the said quarter, because of which it was lying vacant. It reads as follows:- Sl Block Remarks x x x x x

These quarters are in dilapidate condition, the roof cover is falling and leaking very badly, these are the non standard qtrs with single room and provided with common toilets separately, walls plastering is peeling out, located in low lying area most of the quarters are lying vacant due to condition of quarters.

10. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that the quarter remained vacant / unallotted, on vacation by the applicant, on account of its dilapidated condition and, therefore, it was recommended for condemnation. Thus, the applicant cannot be held responsible for any revenue loss to the department. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. It is directed to release the arrears of HRA, as per rules, to the applicant for the remaining period, after vacation of the quarter in question, on 13.11.2015, within a period of 3 months of the receipt of a copy of this order. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI)

ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

/al/