Allowed

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. M Ponnurangam

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2023WA/4120/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed this writ appeal from a Single Judge's order granting house rent allowance to a retired employee. The court held that the employee's spouse was allotted rent-free accommodation by an aided institution (Indian Institute of Science), disqualifying him under service rules. It also found the prior concession binding on appeal was erroneous and the delay fatal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.02.2017 allowing the respondent's claim for house rent allowance is set aside.

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs M… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.4120 OF 2017 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001

¶11

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (FINANCE) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN RACE CURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001

¶14

NOW REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER (F & A).

¶15

GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES) KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO.82, SHAKTHI BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAMOD NAIR, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUMIT CHATTERJEE, ADV., FOR SRI. PRADYUMNA L.N. ADV.,)

¶18

AND:

¶19

M. PONNURANGAM S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶21

¶22

LAW OFFICER KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED NO.116/2, TRADE CENTRE II FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADV.,)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 42788/2012 DATED 15/02/2017.

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This intra Court appeal emanates from the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the respondent, retired Law Officer of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') seeking grant of house rent allowance, has been allowed and the Corporation has been directed to pay house rent allowance to the respondent from June 2000 at the rates applicable to the grades of respondent and is directed to pay from time to time.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶31

The facts lie in a narrow compass. The

¶32

respondent joined the services of the Corporation in the

¶33

year 1980 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015. The Corporation admittedly had stopped

¶34

payment of house rent allowance to the respondent since 2000. However, after a period of 12 years, the respondent submitted representations seeking house rent allowance. The aforesaid representations were rejected by orders dated 10.07.2012 and 08.10.2012.

¶35

The respondent thereupon filed a writ petition in which he assailed the validity of the aforesaid orders dated 10.07.2012 and 08.10.2012 passed by the Corporation

¶36

by which his claim for house rent allowance was rejected. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 15.02.2017, in view of submission made by the learned

¶37

counsel for the Corporation that the case of the respondent is covered by an order dated 07.04.1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶39

No.591/1996 quashed the orders dated 10.07.2012 and 08.10.2012 and directed the Corporation to pay house rent allowance to the respondent from June 2000. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

¶41

that an erroneous concession on a mixed question of law and fact was given by the Corporation to the learned

¶42

Single Judge which is not binding on the Corporation. It is further submitted that in O.A.No.591/1996, the Central Administrative Tribunal was dealing with the case of an employee of Accountant General's office and

¶43

dealing with separate set of rules. It is further submitted that wife of the respondent is employed as an Officer in the Indian Institute of Science which is an aided institute. It is further submitted that Indian Institute of Science has allotted accommodation to the

¶44

wife of the respondent wherein the respondent resides.

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶46

¶47

Therefore, in view of the Rules which govern the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation, the respondent is not entitled to claim house rent allowance. It is also pointed out that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the claim for house rent allowance made on behalf of the respondent was belated as the claim was made after a period of 12 years and the writ petition suffers from delay and laches.

¶48

On the other hand, while inviting the attention of this Court to order dated 29.10.2002 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22121/1998, submitted that the Indian Institute of Science is a public charitable trust and is not a public undertaking. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court dated 04.04.1997 in

¶49

VENUGOPAL KUBAIR Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

¶50

SCIENCE AND OTHERS IN W.P.NO.16855/1996 and it

¶51

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶52

is contended that Indian Institute of Science is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that Indian Institute of Science is not an aided institution and it can survive without receiving grant from the Central Government. It is submitted that no interference is called for with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in this intra Court appeal.

¶53

We have considered the rival submissions made

¶54

on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of Rule 5 of the Standing Regulation, the relevant extract of which reads as under:

¶55

"5. xxx

¶56

An employee will not be eligible for House Rent Allowance if his / her spouse has been allowed rent free accommodation at the same station by the State Government / Central Government / Central or State Public Undertakings / Local

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶59

Bodies / Semi-Government organizations / aided institutions / Co-operative Societies, irrespective whether he / she resides separately in accommodation rented by him / her.

¶60

Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is evident that an employee shall not be entitled to house rent allowance if his / her spouse has been allowed a rent free accommodation at the same station by the State Government / Central Government / Central or State Public Undertakings / Local Bodies / SemiGovernment organizations / aided institutions / Cooperative Societies irrespective of whether he / she resides separately in the accommodation rented by him / her.

¶61

In the instant case, admittedly the wife of the respondent is an employee of Indian Institute of Science and has been allotted a rent free accommodation at the same station. It is also not in dispute that respondent

¶62

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶63

resides with his wife. The issue which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Indian Institute of Science is an aided institution. From perusal of letter dated 11.09.2013 addressed by the Deputy Registrar of Indian Institute of Science to the Managing Director of Corporation, it is evident that Indian Institute of Science is an autonomous body. In the aforesaid communication which is addressed to the Managing Director of Corporation, it is stated that the Institution is funded by the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. Thus, the aforesaid communication clearly demonstrates that Central Government gives grant-in-aid to the Indian Institute of Science. Therefore, it is an aided institution within the meaning of Rule 5 of the Standing Regulation.

¶64

Sofar as reliance placed by the learned counsel

¶65

for the appellant on the judgment dated 29.10.2002

¶66

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶67

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22121/1998 is concerned, suffice it to say that

¶68

in the aforesaid judgment, it has inter alia been held that the Indian Institute of Science is a public charitable trust and is an autonomous body. The issue whether it is an aided institution was not involved in the aforesaid writ petition and therefore, the same has not been adjudicated. Similarly, a Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16855/1986, VENUGOPAL KUBAIR , supra, has

¶69

dealt with the question whether or not the Indian Institute of Science is a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid issue has been answered in the negative and is held that the Indian Institute of Science is not "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶70

The aforesaid judgment of Full Bench has no bearing on

¶71

the controversy involved in this appeal as the scope of this appeal is confined to whether the Indian Institute of

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:19527-DB WA No.4120 of 2017

¶73

10 -

¶74

Science is an aided institution within the meaning of Rule 5 of the Standing Regulation.

¶75

It is pertinent to note that erroneous concession

¶76

on question of fact does not bind the party. Therefore,

¶77

the concession made on behalf of the Corporation that the case is of the respondent, is governed by order dated 07.04.1998 passed in O.A.No.591/1996 is concerned,

¶78

does not bind the Corporation. From perusal of the order dated 07.04.1998 passed in O.A.No.591/1996, it is evident that in the aforesaid case, the Tribunal dealt with the case of an employee of Accountant General's office and dealt with separate set of rules.

¶79

It is also pertinent to note that even though

¶80

house rent allowance was stopped till 2000, however, respondent did not lodge any protest and after a period of 12 years, for the first time is seeking house rent

¶81