UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus M. LEPDON AO AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 01-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
M. LEPDON AO AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 1, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Fundamental Rule 45-A. 
Rent-Free Accommodation-Compensation in lieu o,f-Tribunal ordered 
payment of compensation to Government employees since' no accommodation 
was provided to them-Correctness o,f-Held : Only those employee who are 
within the eligibility criteria prescribed in OM dated 2-8-1960 entitled to rent-
.free accommodation-Since the said Government employees are not entitled to 
rent-free accommodation they are not eligible.for compensation in lieu thereo,f-
Howeve1; any compensation that may have already been paid shall not be 
recovered-0.M. 12-11160-ACC-l dated 2-8-1960---Tribunal 's decision set aside. 
The respondents filed applications before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal claiming that they were eligible for free furnished accommodation 
but no such accommodation had been provided to them and, therefore, 
they were entitled to be paid compensation in lieu of the rent-free 
accommodation consisting of licence fee and House Rent Allowance. The 
Tribunal felt bound by the decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. 
S.K. Ghosh & Ors. C.A. No. 2705 of 1991 and allowed the application. 
Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the order of the President of India the expression 'who 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
are not provided with rent-free accommodation' would only mean those 
employees who were within the eligibility criteria prescribed in the O.M. 
G 
12-11/60-ACC-1 dated 2-8-1960. The respondents are not in a position to 
controvent this factual background. If that is the position, in fact, the 
decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh & Ors., CA No. 
2705 of 1991 will not come in the way of deciding whether the respondents 
are not entitled to compensation in lieu of rent-free accommodation and 
H 
455 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be sustained. 
[458-B; H; 459~A] 
Union of bulia & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh & Ors., C.A. 2705 of 1991, 
ref erred to. 
B 
2. If any compensation in lieu of rent-free accommodation that may 
have already been paid shall not be recovered. [459-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1309-1310 of 
1998. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.95 of the Central Administrative 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. Nos. 48/91 and 105 of 1995. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 2087 of 1998. 
Ranjit Kumar and N.N. Goswami, Hemant Sharma, D.S. Mahra, Arvind 
Kumar Sharma, K.R. Nagaraja, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal 
Banerjee and Ms. Anidita Gupta for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Five applications were filed before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench [hereinafter referred to as 
'the 
Tribunal'] by Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees of different departments of 
the Government of India posted in the State of Nagaland wherein they claimed 
that they are eligible for free furnished accommodation but no such 
accommodation had been provided to them and, therefore, they are entitled 
to be paid compensation in lieu of the rent free accommodation consisting of 
licence fee and House Rent Allowance. Since that has been denied to them, 
they approached the Tribunal for redressal. 
The appellants before us contended that the respondents are not entitled 
to such benefits in terms of different notifications issued by the Governmen,t 
fromtime to time. The Tribunal examined the matter and held that the respondents· 
are entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rate prescribed for 'B' class cities 
to ,the Central Government employees which would be payable at the rate of 
15% from 1.1.1986 to 30.9.1986 and from 1.10.1986 at flat rate prescribed 
under O.M. dated 7.8.1987 read with another O.M: dated 13.11.1987 and the 
--
U.0.1. v. M. LEPDON AO [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 
457 
notification GSR No. 623(E) amending the Fundamental Rule 45A with effect 
A 
from 1.7.1987 as held by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2705 of 1991 [Union 
of India & Ors. v. S.K. Ghosh & Ors.]. This part of the order made by the 
Tribunal is not in challenge before us. 
On the question of payment of compensation in lieu of rent free 
accommodation, the Tribunal felt bound by the decision of this Court in S.K. 
B 
Ghosh's case though O.M. dated 2.8.1960 is not superseded and ordinarily t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.