Dismissed

K L Jhamb v. Pb Water Supply & Sewerage Board Chd & Rs

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2011CWP/15041/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition against the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board for withdrawal of House Rental Allowance, the Court refused to issue a writ but ordered that the amount received by the petitioner under bona fide belief need not be recovered, relying on a Full Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

No recovery of the HRA amount received by the petitioner under a bona fide belief.

K L Jhamb Vs Pb Water Supply & Sewerage Board Chd & Rs — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Civil Writ Petition NO.15041 of 1989

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition NO.15041 of 1989 Date of Order: 25.04.2011

¶5

K.L.Jhamb, Private Secretary

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board , Sector-27 Chandigarh and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶11

Present:Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Mohunta, AAG, Punjab for the respondent.

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

¶13

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.10.1989, Annexure P-14, passed by the Managing Director, Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chandigarh, withdrawing HRA and directing the petitioner to repay the amount of HRA.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules do not prohibit the petitioner from receiving HRA, merely because his wife was working as a teacher in the State of Haryana. The petitioner's wife was on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration. The rules framed by the Chandigarh Administration permit both spouses to receive HRA. It is also

¶15

Civil Writ Petition NO.15041 of 1989

¶16

-2-

¶17

prayed that in case this Court arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to HRA, the amount received by the petitioner under a bonafide belief as to his right should not be recovered in view of the ratio of judgment in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) S.C.T., 333 .

¶18

Counsel for the State of Punjab, however, submits that the rules framed by the State of Punjab do not permit the petitioner to draw HRA as his wife was living in government accommodation, the writ petition should be dismissed.

¶19

I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to issue the writ as prayed for.

¶20

The petitioner, admittedly, is living in government accommodation allotted to his wife and, therefore, is not entitled to the HRA in accordance with instructions issued by the State of Punjab. It, however, appears that the petitioner received HRA under a bonafide belief as to his entitlement and a lack of knowledge of relevant instructions.

¶21

In this view of the matter and while dismissing the writ petition, it is ordered that the amount already received by the petitioner shall not be recovered as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra) . No order as to costs.

¶22

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶23

April 25, 2011 nt

K L Jhamb v. Pb Water Supply & Sewerage Board Chd & Rs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K L Jhamb v. Pb Water Supply & Sewerage Board Chd & Rs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amardeep Singh Brar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manisha Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Village Paluwas Vs Maharana Partap Charitable Trust and Ors.

Amit Kumar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Suslekha Vs Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & Anr.