- (1.) The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the employees of the appellantorganisation, viz., the Central Plantation Crops Research Institute are entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) although they are offered official accommodation and they refuse to occupy the same.
(2.) The respondent-employees are occupying various posts in the appellant-organisation. Orders allotting official quarters they were entitled to were passed by the appellant organisation. However, the employees declined to occupy the same for one reason or the other. On their refusal to occupy the quarters, the appellant issued orders denying them the benefit of HRA which they were till then drawing. The respondent-employees challenged these orders before the High Court. Their writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned common decision dated 5-5-1988, held that the employees cannot be compelled to occupy the official quarters and hence on their refusal to occupy the same, they cannot be denied the benefit of the HRA. To arrive at this conclusion the Tribunal has given two reasons. The first is that under the relevant provisions, it is only those employees who has applied for official accommodation and who refused to occupy the same are liable to forfeit the benefit of the HRA and not others. The second reason given by the Tribunal is that the HRA is a part of wages and no deduction from the wages can be made merely on account of the refusal to accept the accommodation.
(3.) We are unable to agree with either of the said reasons. It is obvious that the Tribunal has misread both the relevant provisions governing the entitlement of the accommodation and the HRA as well as the rules which define "pay".;