Dr. Smt. Rashmi Rekha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Rajya
Case Details
Sri Anant Kumar Singh, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and the same is taken on record. Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 15.12.2020, passed by the Incharge Registrar of the respondent- University, in furtherance to the order dated 04.06.2020, passed by the Assistant State Property Officer, Govt. of U.P. The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-University in year 1992 and in year 2008, she was promoted to the post of Professor under the Career Advance Scheme. He submits that the petitioner was allotted a house no. B-21 in Buttler Palace Colony, Lucknow, on rent and she continued to reside over there uptill 2020. He submitted that as per the admissible House Rent Allowance(hereinafter referred to as 'HRA'), the petitioner received the amount of HRA, whereas, since she had been allotted the Government House No. B-21, wherein, she was residing for 11 years, she paid the rent as per the provision prescribed under the law. He added that all of sudden, the 2 WRIA No. 26217 of 2021 State Property Officer Gov. Of U.P. has issued a letter on 04.06.2020 addressing to the Registrar of the respondent-University for recovery of the amount of rent, which was said to be not paid by the petitioner. He submits that in fact this is not the case, wherein, the amount of rent was not paid, but the genesis of the letter dated 04.06.2020 is that the HRA has been paid to the petitioner and she was also allotted the Government House, therefore, she was not entitled for HRA, thus, the same may be recovered from the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the Incharge Registrar has passed the order impugned dated 15.12.2020, without application of mind. He further argued that so far as the question with respect to the payment of HRA is concerned that is the sole domain of respondent- University and Assistant State Property Officer has nothing to do with payment of HRA the petitioner.He added that so far as Government Order dated 18.07.2018 and 29.12.2016 are concerned, those are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. the order dated Concluding his arguments, he submits 15.12.2020 does not stand on its own legs as the same has been passed without any authority of law and that too, on an unlawful order passed by Assistant State Property Officer, dated 04.06.2020. He submitted that there is no application of mind by the respondent- University Authority regarding the recovery of the HRA, therefore, the orders dated 15.12.2020 and 04.06.2020 are unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner was getting HRA and at the same time she was residing in Government accommodation, therefore, Government orders dated 18.07.2018 and 29.12.2016 will come into play and therefore, the recovery can be made. Learned counsel for the respondent-university submits that on the basis of the order dated 04.06.2020, the order has been taken by the Incharge Registrar of the respondent-university. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the moot question, which is apparent is that whether, the Assistant State Property Officer had the right or any authority of law to pass an order 3 WRIA No. 26217 of 2021 for recovery of HRA the petitioner, while directing respondent-university to recover the amount from the petitioner. When this Court examines, it emerges that vide order dated
04.06.2020, the Assistant State Property Officer has not only observed that the petitioner is not entitled for HRA since 01.07.2009, which is the date when the Government accommodation was allotted to the petitioner, but he has also directed to make recovery of the HRA from the petitioner and to intimate the Government thereof. In furtherance to the same, the order was passed on 15.12.2020 by the Incharge Registrar and that is apparent that the same has been passed on 04.06.2020 by the Assistant State Property Officer and there is no application of mind by the respondent-university regarding the order passed for recovery of HRA. This Court has also noticed that two questions are involved in this matter; one is, whether the petitioner is entitled for government accommodation and she was allotted the same by the government authorities and further, whether the HRA was payable to the petitioner or not. Both the questions are to be decided by different authorities under the different laws. The first question, that whether the present petitioner was entitled the government accommodation, is the domain of State Government and so far as the issue regarding the payment of HRA is concerned, it is the subject matter of the respondent-university to decide. Here the two issues have been intermingled vide order dated 04.06.2020 and the Assistant State Property Officer has proceeded beyond its jurisdiction while directing the respondent-university to recover the HRA from the petitioner. Further, the order dated 15.12.2020 which has been passed by the respondent-university for the recovery of HRA, is also apparent that it is passed without application of mind and it is based on the dictates of the Assistant State Property Officer. Consequently, the orders dated 15.12.2020 and 04.06.2020 are unsustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, orders impugned dated 15.12.2020,
04.06.2020 and 17.11.2021 are hereby quashed. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby 4 WRIA No. 26217 of 2021 allowed. It is open for the respondent-university to consider and decide the issue regarding the payment of HRA, whether excessive or not, within period of four weeks, from the date of this order and the petitioner as well as all the stakeholders shall be heard by the respondent- university, in this regard. November 25, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Sri Anant Kumar Singh, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner and the same is taken on record. Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 15.12.2020, passed by the Incharge Registrar of the respondent- University, in furtherance to the order dated 04.06.2020, passed by the Assistant State Property Officer, Govt. of U.P. The contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-University in year 1992 and in year 2008, she was promoted to the post of Professor under the Career Advance Scheme. He submits that the petitioner was allotted a house no. B-21 in Buttler Palace Colony, Lucknow, on rent and she continued to reside over there uptill 2020. He submitted that as per the admissible House Rent Allowance(hereinafter referred to as 'HRA'), the petitioner received the amount of HRA, whereas, since she had been allotted the Government House No. B-21, wherein, she was residing for 11 years, she paid the rent as per the provision prescribed under the law. He added that all of sudden, the 2 WRIA No. 26217 of 2021 State Property Officer Gov. Of U.P. has issued a letter on 04.06.2020 addressing to the Registrar of the respondent-University for recovery of the amount of rent, which was said to be not paid by the petitioner. He submits that in fact this is not the case, wherein, the amount of rent was not paid, but the genesis of the letter dated 04.06.2020 is that the HRA has been paid to the petitioner and she was also allotted the Government House, therefore, she was not entitled for HRA, thus, the same may be recovered from the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the Incharge Registrar has passed the order impugned dated 15.12.2020, without application of mind. He further argued that so far as the question with respect to the payment of HRA is concerned that is the sole domain of respondent- University and Assistant State Property Officer has nothing to do with payment of HRA the petitioner.He added that so far as Government Order dated 18.07.2018 and 29.12.2016 are concerned, those are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. the order dated Concluding his arguments, he submits 15.12.2020 does not stand on its own legs as the same has been passed without any authority of law and that too, on an unlawful order passed by Assistant State Property Officer, dated 04.06.2020. He submitted that there is no application of mind by the respondent- University Authority regarding the recovery of the HRA, therefore, the orders dated 15.12.2020 and 04.06.2020 are unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the State submits that since the petitioner was getting HRA and at the same time she was residing in Government accommodation, therefore, Government orders dated 18.07.2018 and 29.12.2016 will come into play and therefore, the recovery can be made. Learned counsel for the respondent-university submits that on the basis of the order dated 04.06.2020, the order has been taken by the Incharge Registrar of the respondent-university. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, the moot question, which is apparent is that whether, the Assistant State Property Officer had the right or any authority of law to pass an order 3 WRIA No. 26217 of 2021 for recovery of HRA the petitioner, while directing respondent-university to recover the amount from the petitioner. When this Court examines, it emerges that vide order dated
04.06.2020, the Assistant State Property Officer has not only observed that the petitioner is not entitled for HRA since 01.07.2009, which is the date when the Government accommodation was allotted to the petitioner, but he has also directed to make recovery of the HRA from the petitioner and to intimate the Government thereof. In furtherance to the same, the order was passed on 15.12.2020 by the Incharge Registrar and that is apparent that the same has been passed on 04.06.2020 by the Assistant State Property Officer and there is no application of mind by the respondent-university regarding the order passed for recovery of HRA. This Court has also noticed that two questions are involved in this matter; one is, whether the petitioner is entitled for government accommodation and she was allotted the same by the government authorities and further, whether the HRA was payable to the petitioner or not. Both the questions are to be decided by different authorities under the different laws. The first question, that whether the present petitioner was entitled the government accommodation, is the domain of State Government and so far as the issue regarding the payment of HRA is concerned, it is the subject matter of the respondent-university to decide. Here the two issues have been intermingled vide order dated 04.06.2020 and the Assistant State Property Officer has proceeded beyond its jurisdiction while directing the respondent-university to recover the HRA from the petitioner. Further, the order dated 15.12.2020 which has been passed by the respondent-university for the recovery of HRA, is also apparent that it is passed without application of mind and it is based on the dictates of the Assistant State Property Officer. Consequently, the orders dated 15.12.2020 and 04.06.2020 are unsustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, orders impugned dated 15.12.2020,
04.06.2020 and 17.11.2021 are hereby quashed. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby 4 WRIA No. 26217 of 2021 allowed. It is open for the respondent-university to consider and decide the issue regarding the payment of HRA, whether excessive or not, within period of four weeks, from the date of this order and the petitioner as well as all the stakeholders shall be heard by the respondent- university, in this regard. November 25, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench