Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8457 of 2024 1 - Haridwar Kumar S/o Late Shri Rajkishore Aged About 37 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 524, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rohitash Kumar S/o Late Shri Jugveer Singh Aged About 36 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 393, 16th Battalion VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh.
Legal Reasoning
3 - Krishnaveer Singh S/o Shri Laxman Singh Aged About 35 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 567, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sohpat Singh Tekam S/o Shri Chhotelal Tekam Aged About 43 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 537, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Umesh Singh Yadav S/o Shri Patiram Yadav Aged About 38 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 218, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kripashankar Vishwakarma S/o Late Shri Ayodhya Prasad Aged About 65 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 740, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 2 7 - Pramod Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ramdeen Singh Aged About 34 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 242, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 8 - Jagmohan Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh Aged About 63 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Head Constable Batch No. 724, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 9 - Avinash Choudhary S/o Shri Shivlal Choudhary Aged About 36 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Constable Batch No. 347, 16th Battalion B/r Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Headquarter Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commandant 16th Battalion (B / R) Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Company Commander Unit Narayanpur 16th Battalion (B / R) Chhattisgarh Arms Force Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners :- Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For State :- Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 03.01.2025 3 1. The petitioners have filed this petition for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 22.05.14 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no.3 in respect of petitioners. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners including stopping and recovery of the house allowances. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Constables in the Police Department and were posted in the Naxal-affected areas. He further submitted that vide order dated 30.10.2004 respondent No. 1 issued a Circular and granted HRA @ 7% of basic salary to the Police employees who were posted in the Naxal- affected areas. He also submitted that vide order dated 22.05.2014, an order of recovery of HRA was issued by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioners are not the residents of the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore they are not entitled to get HRA. He further argued that the order passed by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala-fide and therefore, deserves to be quashed. He further submits that in the identical petition bearing WPS No.3432/2014, order has been passed granting relief as prayed for by the petitioners herein, therefore, the present petition may also be allowed in terms of the said order. 4 3. The said fact has not been disputed by the learned State counsel, however, she submits that the petition has been filed after an inordinate delay, upon which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a recurring relief in which the delay would not be applicable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In the identical matter bearing WPS No. 3432/2014 (Sanjay Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.07.2024, has passed the order and the relevant para of the said order is quoted hereinbelow:- “5. Admittedly, the petitioners are Police Constables. At the relevant time, they were posted in the Naxal-affected areas. As a sufficient number of government accommodations were not available, the petitioners stayed in rented houses. A Circular was issued by the State Government on 30.10.2007, according to which the Police officials who are staying in rented houses would be entitled to get HRA. The petitioners were granted HRA by the department in the year 2011. This practice continued till 22.05.2014 and on that date, an order of recovery was issued by respondent No. 3. 6. The order granting the benefit of HRA to petitioners and other police officers was issued by the department itself and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioners. The benefit was extended according to the existing circulars; though a declaration was submitted by 5 petitioners, in the absence of any rule concerning the submission of a declaration form, it would not be binding upon the petitioners. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that (i) the benefit of HRA was extended to the petitioners by the department itself; (ii) there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners; (iii) the petitioners are Class-III employees; and (iv) the order of recovery has been issued after 3 years, therefore it would iniquitous for them to refund the amounts. Thus, the order dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure P/1) pertaining to the petitioners is hereby quashed.” 6. After considering the petition as well as the order passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, I am of the opinion that the present petition is liable to be allowed in terms of WPS No.3432/2014 which has been allowed vide order dated 30.07.2024.
Decision
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha